Simpsons porn and that swinging video
December 8, 2008 – 9:42 pmHasn’t it been an interesting day?
First up, Chris Illingworth, a 60 year old from from QLD, has been charged with using the internet to access and publish child-abuse material after he republished a controversial viral video of a man twirling a baby around. As Asher Moses from SMH points out in his article, the same video has been shown on American TV news shows and is widely available online. Some details on the arrest and what happened here.
If you, like millions of other people, watched the video online or on the TV news, it might be time to turn yourself in at your local police station.
Meanwhile, in the case of Alan John McEwan and pornography depicting members of the animated The Simpsons family, the New South Wales Supreme Court ruled that a fictional cartoon character was a “person” within the meaning of the relevant state and commonwealth laws. McEwan was convicted of possessing child pornography and using his computer to access such material – The Simpsons porn – in February. He lost his appeal today.
The magistrate had rejected a submission that cartoon depictions or representations of fictional characters such as The Simpsons were not of “persons”.
Justice Adams said the legislation’s main purpose was to combat the direct sexual exploitation and abuse of children that occurs where offensive images of real children are made.
Didn’t The Simpsons movie feature a penis?
Oh, and how could I forget: The Internet Watch Foundation says the Wikipedia entry for the Scorpions’ 1976 album Virgin Killer could breach child abuse laws. ISPs using the IWF list therefore blocked access to the page and caused a number of Wiki editing problems in the process.
The same list Conroy wants to incorporate into his own ‘clean feed’.
19 Responses to “Simpsons porn and that swinging video”
Sounds like they are going after easy(and questionable) tagets. I wonder how much money was wasted on arresting and prosecuting this guy while actual child abuse is being carried out.
By Sean the Blogonaut on Dec 8, 2008
Having read the news links provided, I can only say that both these care seem to me beyond absurd.
They reinforce my view that arguing more resources should be put into policing – a claim made often in the internet censorship debate by opponents of the ‘Clean Feed’ – is dangerous stuff.
Large bureaucracies create their own workload in order to justify their continuing existence.
If these poor guys are the most serious crims the various Internet Porn and Child Abuse Task Forces can find, best to disband them ASAP. We should only pay for people to do real jobs.
Neither of these cases, from what I’ve read, come even close to the threshold of genuine criminal activity. It’s State brutality run riot. Disgusting.
By Syd Walker on Dec 8, 2008
Who knew that all you required to become a child pornographer was a pen and paper?
If this is the DPP’s idea of time well spent, then I suggest it’s time for a change in their management.
Taking a guy to court for cartoon smut or reposting a viral video, no matter how objectionable they are, doesn’t stop a single act of child abuse. If the guy’s a paedophile, then arrest him for that. Otherwise, spend your time dealing with real crimes. This is a waste of time and money.
By Stuart on Dec 9, 2008
The whole cartoons/drawings as child porn issue has been going on for quite a while in Japan; http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-11-27/japan-lack-of-laws-on-virtual-child-porn-criticized
Now while I find a fair wack of the Japanese stuff pretty abhorent and have no interest at all in the hentai, moe or lolicon genres, I do think it’s quite weird for someone to be charged for either drawing this stuff or owning it. I think proctedting real children, not ink on a page, would be more productive. I just think sometimes the law has lost sight of wht we have these laws; to protect children.
By Matthew on Dec 9, 2008
For the first time in my life I am ashamed of being australian!
What has happened to our country?
By Bill on Dec 9, 2008
Please note the action would have been taken by the New South Wales Police. According to the SBS news reports
————————
“In February at Sydney’s Parramatta Local Court, Alan John McEwan was convicted of possessing child pornography and using his computer to access such material.
He was fined $3,000 and required to enter a two-year good behaviour bond in relation to each offence.
McEwan appealed against the conviction, but it was dismissed in the NSW Supreme Court on Monday, with Justice Michael Adams concluding a fictional cartoon character is a “person” within the meaning of Commonwealth and NSW laws.”
———————
It was only a month or so ago that shops (a shopP allegedly selling prohibited material were/was raided in Parramatta and within a few days were/was back in business – as they have been for as long as I can remember.
In the case of “unrated” or “X” rated or non CP “RC” material the material has to be sent to the “OFLC” for appraisal (they charge a fee for this). It should be remembered that the OFLC refused to deal with CP material in the past and the laws changed giving the NSW police direct powers with respect to material alleged to be child pornography.
There may be more to this than is being reported.
By Bob Bain on Dec 9, 2008
As you state on your blog Michael moral panic.
My wife has suggested some of the “child protection campaigners” will not be happy until children wear burkhas when they leave their house.
I suspect this generation of children will not thank us when they become adults, when their freedoms have been curtailed as is happening.
Their is no predicting how far this viral madness is going to go, it has already spread across the world, with a British furniture shop having to cover up nude gnomes, because it upset children. I think as kids we would have laughed at the nudie gnome.
By Terrence Valter on Dec 9, 2008
Another similar case in the USA:
http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/11/24/neil-gaiman-on-the-obscenity-of-manga-collector-christopher-handleys-trial/
Admittedly ‘lolicon’ cartoons are probably more contentious, because they cater to a particular sexual fetish, rather than just being a somewhat vulgar parody of a popular cartoon.
Whether such comics provide people with a harmless outlet for their fetish or actually encourage child abuse is not a question that I’m equipped to answer. I’m often told that Japan (where this sort of thing is legal and commonplace) has one of the lowest rates of sex crime in the world, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a causal relationship between the two things.
By Sweet Sister Morphine on Dec 9, 2008
How does prosecuting these guys help protect real life children from abuse? I thought if any would happen to the guy that drew the Simpsons characters would be some sort of copy right infringement. The police should be spending their resources more effectively and arrest real child abusers.
By Jarrod on Dec 9, 2008
Doesn’t every crime needs a real victim e.g. someone that was hurt by particular action? How can a fictional character be a victim?
So, by law every character drawn on the paper has the same rights as real person?
By SkipEU on Dec 9, 2008
I’ve just posted a “LOVE IS…” cartoon on my blog, it features naked child-like characters engaging in foreplay. I’ve posted it to make a point about this case… but I do hope I can pay my legal fees when the cops come to get me.
By Ms Naughty on Dec 9, 2008
It looks like moral panic is just going to escalate further and further. But then, what do you expect with the bubble generation.
I’m not sure how many of you have seen the blog, Violent Acres. A bit of a crazy woman, but her parental methodology and stance on raising and teaching (in its own way, protection) is sound.
Here’s a couple related to children and over-protective parents:
http://www.violentacres.com/archives/389/the-negative-effects-of-child-fear-mongering
http://www.violentacres.com/archives/279/a-pedophile-lurking-behind-every-dark-corner
http://www.violentacres.com/archives/422/how-children-cope-with-failure
By Joyce on Dec 9, 2008
Make that “a few”. Remembered an extra after I typed “a couple”.
By Joyce on Dec 9, 2008
With respect to the baby swinging incident a google search on “Biggles9″ will shed some light on the issue….
Here’s some video commentary on the incident…
http://podblanc.com/live-leaker-biggles9-arrested-uploading-baby-swinging-video-not-uswingingu-baby-uuploadingu-video
By Bob Bain on Dec 10, 2008
even worse: I hear Bart has herpes. oh the shame, the shame.
for more on this story, see ‘cartoon justice – man convicted of simpsons porn’ here:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/simpsons_porn
doh!
dt
By dt on Dec 10, 2008
How do the Australian authorities reconcile their approach to the Simpsons “child” abuse with Australian tourists traveling to a nearby Pacific island on organised tours to witness circumcision ceremonies? (Google it)
I would have thought that 14 year old boys being mutilated without medical supervision would rank quite high on the child abuse scale. But – hey its only a boy, not a cartoon.
By Kerry on Dec 11, 2008
I assume that each time we watch Funniest Home Videos on TV, some of us are commitiing a crime? Talk about muddy waters, why is it ok for mainstream media to access and promote vids (as in the case of the baby swinging vid)but its not ok to access the same vid on the net.
I seriously doubt that the laws that were put in place to protect children were never intended to be used in the manner they have been recently, ie: posting a viral vid, and downloading cartoon porn.
How about our police departments stop treating us all like potential peadophiles and target the real human filth, the makers and peddlers of real child abuse.
By jenva on Dec 15, 2008
Haven’t seen the swing incident, but did you know that someone seeking Simpsons porn can end up here?!
By Maggie on Jan 9, 2009