Naked Bart Simpson Is Paedophilia And Child Porn
BUT is it porn, you know that London 2012 Olympic logo of Lisa Simpson giving London a b*** j**?
To Australia, where Justice Michael Adams dismisses the appeal made by Alan John McEwan over his conviction for possessing child pornography and using his computer to access child pornography.
In February, McEwan appeared before the Beak who said that if the images had contained real children he would have been jailed. McEwan was fined $3000 and placed on a ‘good behaviour bond’.
McEwan felt wronged. His images depict figures that “plainly and deliberately” depart from the human form, says he.
Justice Adams considers the images of the four-fingered, yellow-skinned, two-dimensional Simpson family in various states of coitus. He concludes that the fact that they are not realistic representations of humans does not mean they should not be considered people.
“The alleged pornography comprised a series of cartoons depicting figures modelled on members of the television animated series The Simpsons. The male figures have genitalia which is evidently human, as do the mother and the girl. 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’.”
Justice Adams, admitting the issue was “difficult”, said the purpose of current legislation was to stop sexual exploitation and child abuse where images of “real” children are depicted.
Thought Crime
So a cartoon drawing is a real person. No need to wait until a crime has been plotted or committed before the police can act. Encouraging others to possibly think of committing a crime is enough.
Justice Adams says the laws aims to deter the production of material, including cartoons, that could “fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children”.
It is sad truth that hardened paedophiles do possess drawings of the most depraved sexual acts. And in the UK, these are not illegal.
But consider if you will boys engaged in acts of sticky fingered adolescence with pen and paper. Is the image of Miss having sex with a pupil tantamount to paedophilia, child abuse or rape? And does the interpretation depend on the artist’s skill? A nebulous blob is clearly a cartoon, whereas a fine-line drawing, in colour, with perspective and shading, is a crime?
If no actual flesh and blood person has been hurt, is this not venturing into the area of thought crime? Is downloading an image the same as looking at a picture on a shelf or wall?
The one difference on the internet is that no-one will spot you emerging from the web room, or so you hope. You will not be forced to up your collar, wrap your jazz mag within a copy of Aviation Monthly and scurry off in case you are recognised.
Anorak recalls one trip to Paris with football fans. Drinking on Rue St Denis, by the sex shops, we watched as a man furtively made his way into a building. We formed a guard of dishonour outside, meaning when he emerged he was met with no fewer than 500 footballs supporters chanting “We can see you sneaking out” and draping flags scarves over his bowed head.
Would the creep look at child porn on the internet if they could be so accosted?
The notion is that thought leads to the action. You cannot think of shagging your teacher without jumping her in the corridor between double maths.
So a drawing of Bart Simpson’s aroused penis is a crime if a shot of the lad’s flaccid member is entertainment and part of the Simpson’s film. Yes, it is.
Where do you draw the line between the real and the imagined?
Posted: 8th, December 2008 | In: Key Posts, Strange But True Comments (14) | TrackBack | Permalink
