Fake Simpson's cartoon is child porn

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not sure what everyone thinks about this - but a pretty landmark ruling all the same.

An appeal judge in Australia has ruled that an animation depicting well-known cartoon characters engaging in sexual acts is child pornography.

The internet cartoon featured characters from the Simpsons TV series.

The central issue in the case was whether a cartoon character could depict a real person.

Judge Michael Adams decided that it could, and found a man from Sydney guilty of possessing child pornography on his computer.

The defence had argued that the fictional, animated characters were not real people, and clearly departed from the human form.

They therefore contested that the conviction for the possession of child pornography should be overturned.

Justice Michael Adams said the purpose of anti-child pornography legislation was to stop sexual exploitation and child abuse where images of "real" children were depicted.

But in a landmark ruling he decided that the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.

He ruled that the animated cartoon could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children," and therefore upheld the conviction for child pornography.

Rather than jail the man, however, he fined him Aus$3,000 (US$2,000).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7770781.stm

Edited December 8, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[Niels Bohr 72]

Another gesture at an attempt to censorship.

[mawilson 2,133]

That's just bizarre.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well... it sounds weird but I can see their point.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Here is what SCOTUS said about this back in 2002:

Supreme Court strikes down ban on 'virtual child porn'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday struck down a 6-year-old law that prohibits the distribution and possession of virtual child pornography that appears to -- but does not -- depict real children.

The law had banned a range of techniques -- including computer-generated images and the use of youthful-looking adults -- which were designed to convey the impression of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

The 6-3 ruling says the law violates the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. The decision hands a major setback to the Justice Department and the majority of Congress in their legislative efforts to fight child pornography.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said key provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 were "overbroad" and infringed on established protections of material with artistic value that does not violate community standards.

"Pictures of what appear to be a 17-year-old engaging in sexually explicit activity do not in every case contravene community standards," the court said.

"The (Act) also prohibits speech having serious redeeming value, proscribing the visual depiction of an idea -- that of teenagers engaging in sexual activity -- that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature for centuries."

The opinion cited several artistically significant instances in which teenage sex was portrayed, including William Shakespeare's play "Romeo & Juliet," and the recent movies "Traffic" and "American Beauty."

Kennedy was joined by justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Clarence Thomas wrote a separate opinion agreeing with their conclusion.

Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, in a dissent, disagreed with much of the majority opinion, and was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia.

In a separate dissent Rehnquist, backed by Scalia, strongly disagreed with the majority, saying "the computer-generated images are virtually indistinguishable from real children."

The ruling came in a case named Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and President George W. Bush's Justice Department inherited defense of the law from former Attorney General Janet Reno and the President Clinton Justice Department, which had defended the law in the lower courts.

The Free Speech Coalition is comprised primarily of a trade association of publishers of pornographic materials.

Ashcroft said he was disappointed by the court's decision.

"This morning the United States Supreme Court made our ability to prosecute those who produce and possess child pornography immeasurably more difficult," Ashcroft said.

Ashcroft said the Justice Department would use every resource to prosecute child pornography cases and said child pornographers "will find little refuge in today's decision."

He said he would work with Congress to pass new laws that would survive the court's scrutiny.

"I believe today's opinion and the Constitution leave open legislative avenues to protect our children from harm and we will seek to develop the means to do so with legislative endeavor," Ashcroft said.

Still to be decided by the Supreme Court this spring is another case involving a separate law, which specifically restricts the access of minors to sexually explicit material on the Internet.

Find this article at:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/sco...tual.child.porn

[Amby 490]

It seems kinda wacky