Not only that but child porn. Raises some interesting issues I would think. I can definitely see the judges point but surely there has to be a distinction between someone having dodgy naked pictures of The Simpsons having sex and real pictures of children being abused?
What is the charge for possessing similar Disney inspired images I wonder?
Due to the serious nature of this post I now call upon Monty to post a picture of a fluffy kitten to balance it all out.
(, Mon 8 Dec 2008, 17:01, Reply)
"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."
I agree. The harm isn't being done when someone looks at the picture... but if they are fuelling a demand for the production of the pictures, that is when young lives are damaged.
In the case of looking at cartoon porn, sick as it might be, no-one is hurt in producing it, therefore where is the crime?
(, Mon 8 Dec 2008, 17:12, Reply)
that the argument would be that any porn with kids in, real or not, to some extent legitimises the paedos position and makes the filthy devil more likely to beast kids...
thats not my argument...
but for balance...
(, Mon 8 Dec 2008, 17:36, Reply)
come on man... seriously...
(, Mon 8 Dec 2008, 18:24, Reply)
I thought it was a case that they were trying to make these types of pictures illegal, as they currently were legal. Might have been on QOTW, but I remember someone posting that their friend looks at drawings of child porn and it was debated whether it should be allowed or not!!
(, Mon 8 Dec 2008, 17:49, Reply)
Do they translate the Australian dollars into US dollars, instead of pounds?
(, Mon 8 Dec 2008, 18:00, Reply)
from the other sources ive seen this story, they do just mean pics featuring the simpsons kids (bart, lisa, etc).
(, Mon 8 Dec 2008, 22:12, Reply)
tho we have been for quite a while IMO.
(, Mon 8 Dec 2008, 23:59, Reply)