Forum - View topicAustralia, bizarre verdict on ¨virtual child pornography¨
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
einhorn303
 Posts: 1180 |
|
|||
|
Slightly OT, but I think it has ramifications for the continuing (and highly relevant) lolicon debate:
A man charged over cartoons showing sex acts involving children modelled on The Simpsons characters has failed to have his child pornography convictions overturned. In the NSW Supreme Court on Monday, Justice Michael Adams ruled a fictional cartoon character was a "person" within the meaning of the relevant state and Commonwealth laws. In February, Alan John McEwan was convicted in Parramatta Local Court of possessing child pornography and using his computer to access child pornography. "The alleged pornography comprised a series of cartoons depicting figures modelled on members of the television animated series The Simpsons," the judge said. The cartoons showed characters like Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson having sex. The man was convicted and fined $3,000 and placed on a good behaviour bond. "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 judge said. "... 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'." In dismissing the appeal, the judge ordered each party to pay its own legal costs as this was the first case dealing with this "difficult" issue. http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/...ld-porn-judge/ |
||||
|
||||
|
dormcat
Encyclopedia Editor
 Posts: 9902 Location: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC |
|
|||
|
Well then, maybe it would be easier to marry a fictional character in Australia than doing so in Japan.
By the way, can we open bank accounts for fictional characters as well? I'd say money launders would be *very* happy to hear the news. |
||||
|
||||
BES Null Core
 Posts: 604 Location: 六十周年的东方裁判 |
|
|||
No, unless you're going to file additional lawsuits on behalf of those causes and win.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ohoni
Posts: 3421 |
|
|||
|
Sure. Finctional characters are people too. It also means that you could draw a picture of, say, your neighbor murdering Snoopy, and have him arrested for murder. You could also presumably marry an anime character in Austrailia if you'd like, so long as they aren't the same gender.
|
||||
|
||||
Emerje
 Posts: 7424 Location: Maine |
|
|||
|
While we're giving them human rights why don't they give them voting rights and put them trial as well.
 Why don't they start arresting people as accessories to murder for watching horror movies while we're at it...
Emerje |
||||
|
||||
ikillchicken
 Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||
|
I'm not exactly surprised. Australia has made some rather questionable choices to do with censorship lately.
However, I think people need to recognise here that they are only saying fictional characters are people in terms of laws that apply to their depiction in this way. It is similar to saying for example that a fictional character is a "person" as it applies to the rules that prevent television from showing a "person" naked. Of course, that doesn't mean I agree with their decision or feel it justifies censorship. In fact it seems like they are rather overstepping their authority if the law only mentions people and they are stretching it so far as to add virtual children. It is only for the Supreme Court to interpret laws, not to make them. |
||||
|
||||
Zin5ki
 Posts: 6680 Location: London, UK |
|
|||
Censorship in the case of television I'll accept, but I do so on the basis that fictional characters exist as explicit images not to be broadcasted to those who could take offence, instead of as people per se. If the term 'person' is to be applied to fictional characters when being depicted as performing illegal acts and not otherwise, then I'd suggest it is the explicitness of the images themselves, and not any tangible imvolvement of people, which the NSW Supreme Court are concerned with. My opinion of outlawing such, as opposed to merely preventing it from being viewed by those who do not personally wish to, is the same as that of everyone who has posted before me. |
||||
|
||||
|
Unit 03.5-ish
Posts: 1540 Location: This space for rent |
|
|||
|
From a technical standpoint, fictional characters boinking doesn't affect anything because these aren't REAL people. Eyes aren't batted when someone looks up lesbian porn from Lucky Star, for example. I'm not CONDONING the creation of such pornography (a fictional 12-year-old is still 12 years old, regardless), I'm just saying there are much more important legal matters to be pursued.
|
||||
|
||||
|
sk1199
Posts: 162 |
|
|||
|
I wonder if they're (the australian police) going to start arresting and prosecuting the characters that are doing these illegal acts? It makes just as much sense as what they're doing now.
|
||||
|
||||
sunflowerseed
 Posts: 106 Location: South Texas |
|
|||
Interesting, how about the 'fictional' characters as well suing the drawer of the conflicted video in it as well for damages and putting them in that situation of said sexual behavior? How much would it cost to imprison a 'ficitional' character for 10 years and how much would this 'fictional' jail cost the tax payers as well? Would a 'fictional' lawyer handle the case or would a 'RL' lawyer take it? I wonder how much the 'fictional' characters cost the hospital for all the DNA testing and who will be charged for those fees as well. |
||||
|
||||
sogekihei-neko
 Posts: 128 |
|
|||
I'll put ten bucks on Rena Ryuuguu ftw when they come to get her. |
||||
|
||||
Eruanna
 Posts: 451 Location: Canada |
|
|||
|
As much as I, also, find it rather ridicules to say that a fictional character is a legal "person"...
Im going to have to go against popular opinion here and say that this kind of censorship is a very good thing. It seems to be generaly accepted nowadays that "all censorship is an invasion on freedom of speech and expression and evil to the core." I do not belive it to be so. If someone wants to start spouting racist propaganda on public TV, it gets censored to protect the people groups being targeted. If someone wants to draw and make public pictures of kiddy porn, it should be censored to protect children. Not A particular child, of course, because DUH it dosnt involve a real child, but children in general. What people dont realise is that what we view and make a habbit of watching and looking at DOES effect us, it DOES change the way we think about things, and the fact that any kind of child porn, real or fictional, is acceptable anywhere is a very scary thing. Yeah, Im not gonna be very popular. Tear me down, for I stand against freedom. Right. |
||||
|
||||
|
Ohoni
Posts: 3421 |
|
|||
|
You could, presumably, jail fictional character merely by placing them on wanted posters in your local jail.
|
||||
|
||||
|
einhorn303
Posts: 1180 |
|
|||
|
So a random SomethingAwful.com poster who has a single picture of a Simpsons porn comic just because he finds it bizarre and amusing is going to go out and rape children, right?
Also, ruining people's lives by declaring them sex offenders over drawn pictures doesn't protect children. It's hysterical witch-hunting. I'm not sure you understand just how insane things can get. This teenager's life was ruined because he mooned his sister-in-law: http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner11182008.html He's not allowed to live in the same place for more than two hours. He can't hold a job. He's developed a substance abuse problem. All because he mooned his sister when he was a teenager. This isn't a strange or unique case, either, there are tons of stories like it. Children aren't the ones who need to be protected. It's the innocent victims of an mad "justice" system who need to be protected.
|
||||
|
||||
zhir
 Posts: 353 Location: Nampa, ID, USA |
|
|||
No one is saying it should be shown on TV. Censoring public TV is entirely different from JAILING someone who creates media. Last edited by zhir on Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:54 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group