http://blogs.computerworld.com/simpsons_porn Kinda lame if you asked me. Someone forwards you a poor taste joke, depicting some Cartoon characters screwing or something (I remember seeing one about "The Peanuts" gang about 10 years ago where snoopy and tweedy were DPing Sally while Patty licked her tits) You keep it, because you know you are like 90% of people out there and keep every stupid joke you get and you are now a fucking criminal? Lame.
What the hell?? There is no way on this earth I'll ever consider moving there now Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yeah, but as Asguard keeps saying, they have great health care. LMAO Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I guess if cartoons are real people we better charge Matt Stone and Trey Parker with over 100 counts of murder. We'll have to call Stan and Kyle as witnesses.
I remember coming across some porn my folks had hidden in their room. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs stands out in my mind. Who knows how old poor Dopey was. Both Snow White and Grumpy took advantage of that poor underage mentally handicapped CARTOON CHARACTER. WTHell is wrong with Australia? If a man is masturbating and wipes up with a pair of child's underwear, is he also a sex offender?
All those kids in jr high who used to draw and write penis on everything, would probably be in jail too.
We'll have to round up anyone who drew beards, glasses, and hats on the biology book sperms - clearly they're guilty of pre-child abuse. Or something.
I don't even think that CGI child porn should be a crime. It would be like saying that pretending to murder someone in an action/adventure movie is the same as a real murder. If weirdos can get off by watching stuff that isn't real and didn't involve exploiting real people, to me that sounds like a tremendous step forward. After all, that's what mainstream movies are. We get our jollies by watching crime, war and mayhem without anyone getting hurt. As for "South Park," under U.S. law once you become a "public person" you're an open target for anyone. The laws about libel and slander no longer protect you.
Maybe. But do you think they will stop at that? Or do you think for some of them such activities might merely act as an impetus and stepping stone towards acts that do involve exploiting real people? I’ve heard many times that most serial killers started off by torturing and killing animals. If that’s true then it’s not hard at all to think that a would-be child molester would start with child porn as a stepping stone to the real thing. Yes, but those mainstream movies don’t include child porn.
Isn't there a way to study that? Do people who watch bestiality go on to screw animals? DO people who watch violent porn practise it?
i love how even though i havent been here in over a week i still get atacked by orleander in a thread i didnt even know existed untill 2 min ago, oh well. Well what do you honestly expect? those laws were written because making child porn harms children but once again parliment didnt think through the wording oviously. Hell i rember 2 specific cases of legislative screw ups like this. One was in victoria where all companies employing more than a certain number of people were required to close on good friday and the parliment forgot to write in in such a way that petrol stations had to close to and you had the ridiculas outcome of the premiure begging petrol stations to open and that when parliment went back he would change the laws retrospectivly. The other (i cant rember which state) was to ban Female genital mutilation and ended up making it illegal for a women to chose to get a clit ring if she wanted and when questioned about it, the liberal member was "shocked" that any women would want to do that. Then you have stupid judges who make idiotic decisions like saying that a women wasnt raped because "she didnt scream loud enough" (that one came from a judge only trial in the US)
There should be empirical steps taken and tests created for use as weight on judgments like these. For example personality traits, and chemical traits found in the brain. The former is easily identifiable by prison guards and prisoners by intuition thus far I haven't seen it written down. The second is already making headway and know someone personally involved who took a chemical test which ran negative. Give it a few years time and technology will be able to make judgments like these more objective. I assume the judges intent was to catch a sex criminal. I think brain scans should tag potential sex criminals for public awareness if there is ever a way to curb the error.
Doesn't that just depend on the individuals ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy? Why would that make someone more likely to act out porn(of any kind) than violence or drugs or anything else? :shrug:
I would assume so. I’d bet that some do. Not necessarily. There doesn’t need to be any confusion between reality and fantasy for someone to want to try an experience for real after having read about it or watched it. I don’t know; maybe nothing. I didn’t suggest that anything was more likely than anything else. I'm just throwing some ideas into a discussion about why someone might be charged for possessing cartoon porn.
Your days of swine and roses "Christian zombie vampires! I am the father, the father of nothing!" (TKK) I think we should test a theory. Next time you're over at the home of a friend who has children, suggest how funny it would be to have come over and found the parents fucking the kids senseless. And then show them one of these Simpsons cartoons. You know, maybe fifteen years ago when this shit still came around via fax. Or even ten years ago when people still didn't understand email and the pervasive nature of the web. (Hell, one of my friends just sent me, about two weeks ago, a genuine inquiry about whether he should follow up a spam advert for a "free" new computer.) But the thing is that these days such pictures are a dime a dozen. You know, when I was a kid, a still-shot of a naked woman standing there with saggy tits and a bush the size of Texas was titillating. After you see enough of them, though, it's hard to understand the fascination. It wasn't long ago that an Australian associate of mine touted the virtues of not having free speech as a Constitutional guarantee. Apparently, arresting people for Simpsons porn is one of those virtues. Don't look at me, I'm not Australian. But, you know, even I know the fucking rules about pornography and obscenity in my own goddamn country. No matter what risks I might take someday, I would hope to be more dignified about it if I got myself busted than to say it shouldn't be a big deal. Child pornography is child pornography. I could no more circulate pictures of my seven year-old daughter performing lewd acts than I could publish a story about fucking her brains out. That nothing about the published story is real doesn't matter under the law. If I posted a story here about an Australian lawyer and mother named Sells and an Indian Muslim scholar named Bam, and depicted their great lesbo-equine menage a necro with Seattle Slew, would it really matter if it "wasn't real people"? The reality is that there are a lot more people out there who want to fuck children—or see their fellow Sciforums members bang a dead horse—than people are usually ready to admit. And this whole, "Come on, it's not real people!" argument, while it has some merit in the abstract, is as a practical argument in the real world nothing more than a bunch of people hoping to justify themselves, just a little bit, in terms of their own pedophilia.