back to article Cartoon smut law to make life sucky for Olympic organisers

Government zeal in pursuing anyone suspected of harbouring paedophilic tendencies may shortly rebound – with unintended consequences for the 2012 Olympic logo. Earlier this month, the Coroners & Justice Bill 2009 received the Royal Assent. This Act was another of those portmanteau pieces of legislation for which the current …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Paris Hilton

The title is required.

“The London 2012 logo depicts the figure 2012 and nothing else.”

A bad case of head in the sand if you ask me.

Paris, because she knows all about giving head.

0
0
Unhappy

A bit too late

This law has come out a bit too late. I often feel like I'm one of the few remaining who hates the 2012 logo *and* still remembers my hate for it on a regular basis. It's unfortunate that after the uproar when it was revealed, it just died down and was forgotten. Once we get closer to the 2012 Olympics, it'll be pointed out a few times, but nothing's going to happen. We're going to travel in those wonderful underground trains in the morning, full of foreigners, and I don't know about you, but I am going to feel embarrassed for my city with this logo "proudly" splashed everywhere.

This new 'smut law' seems like a ray of hope, but I'm not going to hold out on any; the 2012 logo is going to stay as it is and it will be *everywhere* soon. *sob* *sniff*

2
0
IT Angle

It's a bad logo anyway

I've been waiting for "the powers that be" to admit that the Olympics 2012 logo was just a place holder until they could come up with something better. Here's a perfect excuse.

1
0
Silver badge
Megaphone

London: 2012 - I'm offended, it's outrageous, etc!

Where do I claim?

When do I get my cash ?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Doh!

Looks a bit more like Maggie Simpson, and if you squint a little the other shape looks like the Pope.

Oh no, religious intolerance and the don't think of the children brigade collide: order me a up a tub of popcorn, I'll be back for breakfast.

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Hmmm... thoughtcrime .... children....

A cake so appealing that few lawmakers have the mental ability to resist. I doubt whether any consequences will come out of really shite and sinfully expensive official rorschach blobs for chest-beating "panis et circenses" programs that a nearly bankrupt government can ill afford. Laws apply to YOU.

Now excuse me while I fap to anime porn while I still can.

That hand logo should do.

0
0
Bronze badge
Troll

Think of the children

Clearly those responsible for this outrage are all paedophiles and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

And those who try to give them cover are just as guilty and should be prosecuted with them.

And the law should follow the trail of responsibility wherever it may lead.

Hmmm.... Mr. Brown, those nice policemen would like a word with you. They think that you could assist them in their enquiries. Now, Mr. Brown.

0
0
Big Brother

With apologies to the NRA

Laws don't put people in jail. Judges do.

Let's start a new pro-law group, which appreciates the legal system precisely for not working in the way paranoiacs believe it does.

0
1
Silver badge

The reall trick here...

Would be to wait for the Met Police Commissioner was on an Olympic platform talking about the policing of the games and how Party Apparatchiks will be given priorities lanes to drive to events while voters will be made to walk.

Then to get a journalist to ask the Commissioner when he will be arresting himself under the child pron laws for appearing on a platform where the said image is clearly displayed.

If this was timed right, you might even get a minister on the platform too... and the TV cameras from around the world.

Wouldn't it be fun to see them explain that the picture that is widely believed to be of a child performing an adult act wasn't an offense and that they personally shouldn't be sent to spend the rest of their life behind bars.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

3 Strikes and your out

"In the first instance, any image claiming to be "child porn" is evidence of child abuse, and those possessing such images are considered to be fuelling the trade for such material by creating an economic demand for it."

Except there isn't a commercial trade, and if there was you would trace people by their credit card purchases. Kiddy porn was already illegal, this just expanded the definition to stuff that was not kiddy porn by leveraging the UK's pedo panic.

Thus, if you point out that they're MAKING CARTOONS ILLEGAL, they point the finger and claim PEDO! Thus shutting down the discussion of how departed from common sense they have become.

"Government Minister Maria Eagle"

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/images/mariaeagle3.jpg

See a pattern? I do.

For example this one (from Baroness Scotland/Hariet Harman no less)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7528652.stm

It's OK for a woman to murder a man if they claim they are in a abusive relationship... you could leave, or you could stay and murder your boyfriend, and they made it legal to murder your boyfriend.

1
0
Big Brother

Is it Now Lawful to Kill Harriet Harman?

Quoting from the linked BBC news article:-

"And in "exceptional circumstances" a defendant could successfully claim they killed in response to words or conduct that left them feeling "seriously wronged"."

At first I thought this might be a licence to start killing members of the government, due to their many words and much conduct that has left many of us feeling "seriously wronged".

But then I thought of a possible twist: if I say I feel "seriously wronged" by Harriet Harman, can that now be taken as a death threat? Could I be arrested for saying I feel "seriously wronged" by members of the government?

Uh... Somehow, I don't feel safe...

0
0
Joke

We'd almost belive it was clean

If the first choice hadn't been a poorly disguised take on Goatse. Clearly they're pushing illegal pornograpy.

0
0
Thumb Down

This article is incredibly daft...

...and I'm really rather daft for spending a few minutes reading it, as are you for reading the comments about it.

It fails at being funny too.

1
3
IT Angle

"We’re glad you liked this post!"

I'll bet!

But seriously, el-reg, if you stand by this article then presumably you are also in trouble for providing a link to the child pornography in question.

I have to say it took a few looks and a lot of squinting to see what people were on about. I still can't see why Lisa Simpson though. As for the logo, it looks like they drew lots of really bad ideas on post it notes (pink and yellow) then threw them all on the ground in disgust and suddenly realised, "Hey that looks like 2012, let's go with that".

0
0
Bronze badge

How does this affect bbfc classified works?

I just checked, Puni Puni Poemy is bbfc classified (18) and quite blatantly covers this subject. Should we be turning in Amazon?

0
0

Exception for classified works

Mycho - There's an exception for classified works - and also, there's a clear intent to be humourous rather than pornographic.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Classified Works Excluded, But Not Extracts

Section 63 deals with classified works: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g63

Basically, BBFC classified works are excluded from prohibition, which means you can still legally possess them. But, as with the extreme porn law (in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008), extracts from such classified works can still be illegal to possess.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

however

However Manga doesn't get certified, and fansubbed anime wouldn't be covered and neither would imports.

0
0

Someone will turn it into something

After reading the article and looking at the logo, I can see what people are referring to but if I had not looked at the logo, I would not have seen the "sex act".

When my wife and I were thinking of names for our sons, we started avoiding certain names because of how kids might twist them into something else as an insult. After a while, we came to the conclusion that no matter what name we gave our sons, if another child wants to insult them and can't turn their name into something else insulting, they will just use a generic insult.

The same could be said about this logo: somewhere, someone is going to see something in any or image. The committee should just avoid obvious images and recommend their logo based on their best efforts.

0
0
Boffin

"those possessing such images are considered to be... creating an economic demand for it"

So, presumably that means that people who file-share child pornography are harming the creators, and are thus heroes?

In other news - wow, is your legal system screwed up. Jailing people for not decrypting files, jailing people for looking at cartoons, and eight bucks a gallon for gas. Yikes.

1
2
Thumb Up

Could Someone Ask Lord Mandleson?

"So, presumably that means that people who file-share child pornography are harming the creators, and are thus heroes?"

Oh, wow!

I really want someone to ask the Dark Lord this question in relation to his Digital Economy Bill: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy.html

Can we, as your question suggests, get child protection paedo-paranoia to collide with copyright Luddism?

Q: Does unauthorised file sharing economically harm the creators, and thus act as a disincentive to create more material?

Mandy: Yes.

Q: So such unauthorised sharing of so-called "child porn" helps reduce actual child abuse, since the creators are economically harmed and therefore disincentivised from making more material?

Mandy: ___________________________________

Can someone please, please get Mandy to fill in the blank?

1
0

Keep up the pressure

Looks like this could become very interesting as a court case and might finally remove Wolff Oilns along with that idiot Seb Co from the scene and maybe we'll even get our money back? Can't have one law for one and another for the public...

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Why not use existing laws to imprison real pedophiles?

"In the first instance, any image claiming to be "child porn" is evidence of child abuse, and those possessing such images are considered to be fuelling the trade for such material by creating an economic demand for it."

How can a photograph of a toaster with "this is child porn" written on it be evidence of child abuse? The internet has so much free porn that vendors have a tough time selling it. If anyone is fuelling a trade for child porn it is the people who are making it scarce.

I would much prefer the police to hunt down people who actually hurt children rather than fund a pogrom against Egon Schiele's successors.

0
0

Complete and utter morons

Child porn involves children. Drawings, whether they're realistic or not, can never be child porn. Anyone claiming otherwise is a complete idiot.

Another reason why I'm glad I don't live in the UK. The laws over there are becoming more and more bizarre.

3
0
Stop

2+2=5

It's true, from a simple common-sense approach, that a drawing of a completely fictional child cannot and is not in anyway a 'real' child. And yet we have arrived at a situation where the law in the UK now says 2+2=5.

You might think it's a drawing. You might think it's all fictional and that no 'actual' child was sexually abused. You might think that. But the law now says you are wrong to think that, no matter the evidence before your eyes. The law says all drawings henceforth deemed 'indecent' are to be treated in exactly the same way as real, actual child pornography.

CEOP themselves (who else?) were chief amongst those goading on the consultation committee to treat such wholly fictional images as actual child pornography, with attendant criminal sentencing to be of an equally steep nature. One wonders what their motivation is their enthusiasm to criminalise vast numbers of comic collectors, or fans of wholly imaginary 3D CG porn.

But nevertheless: the new truth remains (and is now law) - unreal, imaginary, fictional, fantasy, cartoon 'children' who never, ever existed in reality are to be given the same 'protection' by police, courts and child advocates as the real thing, including prison sentences for 'offenders', entry onto the SoR, losss of job, livelihood, home and family and, of course, the child protection industry's biggest, bluntest weapon of choice: to be branded publicly as a paedophile.

In the end, this law was only about opportunism on the part of CEOP and ACPO - the chance for frustrated police officers to idly search through a suspects comic collection if finding something incriminating on their laptop proves a little tricky. It's just another tool in the box, along with the new laws on 'extreme (adult) porn'. It all helps to keep those arrest and conviction figures high and in today's modern PRP police force the Paedogeddon has been an absolute godsend. Just ask CEOP, who are now (armed with their new laws) turning to P2P networks and social networking sites, since the death of 'commercial' child pornography has presumably left them a little short of any actual work.

Kerchiiiing!

3
0

“The London 2012 logo depicts the figure 2012 and nothing else.”

Well that passed me by. Am I unusual in never recognising those objects as numbers?

I'd love to know if this logo was ever considered by focus groups before being unveiled to a slack-jawed in disbelief public by the arbiters of artistic fashion - Tessa (I'm married to a crook) Jowell and Sebastian (I was almost strangled once by William Hague) Coe.

And sorry LOCOG, once you see Bill Clinton and Lisa Simpson in the logo, you can't see anything else.

1
0
Welcome

Quick deletion of the crap logo

I hope someone does make an official complaint to the police about the sexual nature of the logo (when the law becomes official) and that it causes the Olympic committee to change the logo to something that incorporates London properly into it's design.

If the police and government then say "don't be stupid it's obviously not a sexual picture" then they've pretty much shot themselves in the foot as people can use it as a defence in the future. Any politician who tries to bring in catch all laws should have learnt by now that human nature being what it is there will always be exceptions and work arounds that make the law pointless. I think Mandy should be educated about this aspect when it comes to his law trying to stop copyright pirates.

2
0
Paris Hilton

Really now...

This is the first time I've seen that logo and I must say, it is horrible. I had to stare at it for a couple minutes just to figure out that it was supposed to form a 2, a 0, a 1 and a second 2. But the Lisa Simpson angle is absurd. It took me another couple minutes of staring at it after I read that section to figure out how you could possibly piece that together to get anything even remotely like someone giving oral sex.

All I can say, is that there must be WAY too much repressed sexual tension over there if that's what everyone saw when they first looked at that logo.

...Though, you should probably send someone to get back that 400k they stole from you.

Paris, cause the logo looks about as much like her as it does Lisa Simpson.

1
2
Unhappy

Proclivity?

Legislation based on proclivity is extremely dangerous, bordering on thought crime. The current laws, as explained in the article, do make sense as a child would have to be abused for the picture to be produced. But by criminalising the production of someone's mind is very difficult to justify. What if I doodle a cartoon of me killing someone? Does that give me proclivity to murder?

0
0

Get Armstrong & Miller!

They had some good alternative logo ideas a few weeks ago, as I recall...

1
0
Gold badge
Thumb Up

Translated: it's waiting for the law to be ratified

I think the time between the law being ratified and some joker filing the complaint is probably going to be measured in microseconds. The reason for that is IMHO obvious: I haven't found anyone yet in support of this law, or any other recent additions to the books (like the copyright law which would give unelected Mandelson uncontrolled power over stating what constitutes an offence and what not).

It is thus time to break out the popcorn - this going to be a show worth watching..

0
0
Pirate

IWF

The Internet Watch Foundation, IWF, will come in very handy for this kind of thing: http://www.iwf.org.uk/

Not that I'm calling for people to make frivolous reports/complaints. No, not at all. There will, I'm sure, be plenty of genuine, borderline cases for the IWF, and their police advisors, to deal with. Like, for example, the Smurf cases suggested by the next commenter: http://forums.theregister.co.uk/post/637232

0
0
Tel
Grenade

Question...

How would this law relate to (illicit) cartoon imagery of Smurfs engaged in 'adult activity'?

Does anyone know how young or old Smurfs are meant to be? Who decides whether Smurfette is of legal age or not?

1
0
Anonymous Coward

12 Good men and true

It's up to the jury to decide whether, in the words of the Act, "the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are

not those of a child."

1
0
Paris Hilton

What the…???

People actually see Lisa Simpson giving fallatio in the logo? Is this like one of those magic eye posters? That or some people have really sick minds.

Paris cuz, well… do you really have to ask?

1
3
Anonymous Coward

Poetic justice?

I've made my wish. Another crap labour law might just serve one tiny but extremely useful purpose if some of this came to pass. Nothing could be a better illustration of uk.gov's woeful talent for lawmaking than finding the piano wire wrapped tightly round their own testicles.

Appalling logo, dreadful, lazy lawmaking, and frankly awful government.

1
0
FAIL

We'll see

It'll all come out eventually - suck it and see :o

0
0
Megaphone

What The HELL?!!!!

While I have no love for the Olympic Committee...

I would like to say that it's not the committees fault that Sexually Frustrated individuals began seeing pornographic images in everything. Including the Olympic logo.

The committee and the rest of the civilized world should not have to suffer from the delusional perceptions of these pedo-perverts.

0
3

Except ...

It's not the rest of the civilised world's fault that sexually obsessed authorities began seeing pornographic images in everything, including our cartoon collections.

_None_ of us should have to suffer from the delusional perceptions of these paedo-perverts, but that's the law now.

Probably most of us actually preferred living in a world where you didn't have to keep your every thought, word and deed under continual inspection lest some Common Purpose droid denounce you for some doctrinal heresy. But when you have laws like this, written and passed by the sort of creatures which run this show, their vile obsessions poison every aspect of your life, as the very existence of this story proves.

Oh, and I agree with you about the committee, and with everybody about the bloody awful logo.

0
0
Pirate

Impressively Implemented Inticements

I think some people may be missing the point. By way of this example, specifically the 2012 Olympics logo, people are being allowed to incriminate themselves. They devised a nifty "icon" that _must_ be placed where all can see it, all the time. As this official piece of "art" is not depicting a person in detail, and was not expressly created for arousal, it is within the eye (and mind) of the beholder...

Which means all those who "see" a(n incestual) fellatiatic act are, themselves, the _very_ persons the gov is trying to route out with this legislation.

And if you _happen_ to care/dare enough to (attempt to) use the High and Moral Laws against They Who Must Be Obeyed, you are meeting all the(ir) criteria, and are a danger to allow on the streets.

Didn't you guys kick out all the uptight Protestants from your country already? Obviously, they got back in - so you must need tighter Border Control. For your own good, you know. :)

0
0
FAIL

The Simpsons Movie...

...intentionally shows Bart's penis during the bit where he is skateboarding nude.

So, owning a copy of The Simpsons Movie will now be a strict liability offence.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Bart is not a child, he's 20!

So is Bart a representation of a child? Or is Bart the "actor" a 20-year-old (ie. as old as the series)?

Come to think of it, both Bart and Lisa are exactly the same age as the series. So is this incest, or is Lisa just checking whether Bart's zip is broken?

0
0
Stop

I rember from the film

it was his finger he was sticking out at the time

but take thouse frames out of context and *slam* *bang*

0
0
Anonymous Coward

So...

Where do we send our complaints that we find this logo offensive?

That way they might

1) Stop making up such stupidly vague laws based on personal opinions

2) Get a better logo than that pile of squiggles.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Pfft

There should be a law against charging £400k for something any normal member of society would be genuinely ashamed to have created, let alone charged for.

If I had drawn that POS I'd climb tower bridge, stick a sawed-off in my mouth, and "apologise"

2
0

WTF

I'm sorry. I have looked quite hard at the logo. I just don't see it/

- I can't see Lisa Simpson

- I can't see anything particularly phallic

- which makes it quite hard to see an act of fellatio taking place

- and I am just in from the pub - if fellatio was happening |I would see it

I'm sure the register could help me out here and draw me some cartoon lines around what I'm supposed to be seeing but can't. Please do - I clearly need help. [not trying to get you in trouble with the busies - honest guv - but if you're gonna write something at least let it have a basis in reality instead of just making it up - so lets see your pic of Lisa giving head please]

1
1
Coat

So..

I guess using one of those "nude ladies" fonts in size under 18pts is now illegal?

0
0
Silver badge

Except..

I think you're forgetting the "one law for us one law for them" clause

0
0
Stop

Drawing Curtains?

As John Ozimek mentioned in his article, this law criminalises possession of images of sexual activity in the presence of children (Section 62 (7) (a)).

So, I can legally possess a hardcore porn photo of some adults having sex. But I can't legally draw a picture of a child in the background, because then it's an image of sex in the presence of a child. But if I draw a picture frame in the background, and then draw a child in it, that's okay, because then it's just an image of sex in the presence of a picture of a child. But if I then draw some curtains around that picture frame, it turns it into a window frame, and it's back to being an illegal image of sex in the presence of a child again.

If I've got this right, you can commit a sex crime against an imaginary child by drawing a picture of some curtains.

That's insane!

I'm assuming that an image of sex in the presence of a picture of a child doesn't count as an image of sex in the presence of a child, but I might have got that wrong. Section 65 (8) says: "References to an image of a child include references to an image of an imaginary child." Would a picture of a child within an image count as an imaginary child? If so, then drawing a picture frame around a drawing of a child wouldn't make an otherwise illegal image legal to possess after all.

But that would mean that while you can still legally have real sex in front of a drawing of a child, you can't legally possess a photo of that!

But this law is insane anyway.

Seriously, if you had a choice between stopping one real child from being subjected to real abuse, and stopping a million cartoon characters from being subjected to fictional abuse, which abuse would you choose to stop?

Those who say that drawings are as bad as genuinely abusive photos seem to have a dangerous lack of ability to distinguish between what's real and what's imaginary. Or maybe they just don't think real children are worth anything more than drawings. Either way, such people are obviously not to be trusted when it comes to child protection.

Maria Eagle is a real danger to all of us.

16
0
Silver badge
Unhappy

Re: Drawing Curtains?

Seriously, if you had a choice between stopping one real child from being subjected to real abuse, and stopping a million cartoon characters from being subjected to fictional abuse, which abuse would you choose to stop?

Thats easy, the cartoon characters. It boosts the crime report stats and is so much easier to find the evidence for.

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums