back to article Aussie man convicted for Simpsons smut

A second Australian man has been convicted for possessing computer images of cartoon characters in explicit poses. Kurt James Milner, 28, pleaded guilty to charges of possessing child exploitation material and using a carriage service to access child exploitation material. He was sentenced to 12 months in prison, suspended for …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

WTF?

Muppets

Im pretty sure that somewhere I have an email with Simpson porn pics in from 10 or years ago, did the rounds a lot when I was at school.

Maybe I should find it and delete it ....

It does make me wonder about the state of mind of the people who think this is child porn, slightly worrying that they make the laws.

31
0

Undernet is fucked

I've seen undernet sites where the porns ads down the side were Family Guy/Simpsons porn. Am I now automatically an 3vil peed0?

2
0
Thumb Down

I'm sue if it was a second offence with rel child porn it would have been a longer sentence still.

Although I'm sure a life of the sex offenders register is going to be no picnic.

But you seem to be wondering why this is an offence. It is the blurring of the lines between what should be innocent and child like images and blatant pornography. Indeed 10 years ago it probably was funny (perhaps the aussies are 10 years behind the rest of the world) however I suspect a quick search under google images with safe surfing switched off will show that this is not the case.

But you have to ask yourself, what is going through the mind of someone who creates these images. Sure it is probably quite funny seeing an image of two of the adult characters from the Simpsons going at it. But what is funny about two children or even one child and one adult from the same series getting involved in sexual activity. I agree they are just blobs of mostly yellow pixels, but you are lying if you tell me that the fact that these pixels are portraying young children has no bearing on the sexual fantasy involved.

OK so no children were hurt in the making of the specific "artwork" but if that is your criterion then I would ask any parents out there the following. Would you be happy if someone took one of your family snaps of some innocent situation and modified it so that it looked like your children were engaged in sexual activity. If not why not? No children were hurt in the making of the "artwork" so no harm done?!

2
22
Thumb Up

Indeed.

But the problem I detect with people in a lot of these public roles is that if they were actually blessed with the power of critical thought, they'd be in different jobs anyway because they'd realise what a clusterf**k it all is.

Had a lucky escape once when going for a job in a transport planning office, luckily they cocked up the written test part of the interview so badly I couldn't actually pass. That or their mandatory lobotomy budget had run out.

0
0
Silver badge
Stop

Maybe, maybe not

"It does make me wonder about the state of mind of the people who think this is child porn, slightly worrying that they make the laws."

That was my first reaction to this piece but then I thought what about the mind of the individual who has been caught doing it for a second time?

Is this like adolescents who kill cats and other small animals potentially having a disposition to becoming serial killers by showing this or other such psychopathic traits? It may also be akin to rapists who start off with various levels of observation/peeping. Sounds far fetched maybe but I'd be interested to see if there's been research done on this before just slating it out of hand.

0
8
Anonymous Coward

The people that make the laws

Are just responding to media frenzy and "single issue pressure groups" that focus on specifics like how to discipline a child and giving teenagers any quantity of alcohol in the home.

What is massively worrying is that the policy makers look to these groups at all.

2
0
Megaphone

Censorship

you know ive got a copy of the britney spears video somewhere of "hit me baby one more time" now is this considered illegal as she is being sexual dressed as a school girl.

is it ok for the media industry to sell using sex but not anyone else?

7
2
Alert

Careful...

In the eyes of some humourless Plod, almost certainly old son ... or did you think you were joking?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Devils Advocate

OK but let me ask you this..

Should we also ban film companies from having scenes where children die?

Authors from writing books where children are sexually abused?

How about films like Saw? No body was harmed, but you've got to have a strange mind to come up with something like that. Should we lock the script writers up?

7
0
Alert

Dangerous country...

Half the strippers and kissogram girls in the western hemisphere are dressed as schoolgirls mate. Not to mention both old and newer movies of St Trinians. Increasingly dangerous territory despite the fact no sane adult equates such things with reality.

When it's a 'matter of principle' there's no holding the self-elected moral guardians of this world - like so many things it's really about power.

5
0
Stop

Hello Benny

Thanks for your public admission of your contravention of the Children's Act 2004. An officer will be in contact with you shortly to arrange for a convenient time for your arrest.

Please do not use your computer until the police have had time to image all storage media; Any attempt to delete files will be logged by your operating system and submitted as destruction of evidence.

It's probably not a good idea to even joke about having possibly, at some time even before it was illegal, to admit to anything in any way related to an offence of this type.

0
0
Silver badge

Unintentional hitting nail on the head

"Would you be happy if someone took one of your family snaps of some innocent situation and modified it so that it looked like your children were engaged in sexual activity. If not why not? No children were hurt in the making of the "artwork" so no harm done?!"

No I would be seriously pissed off. But - apparently unlike you - I don't consider 'pissing me off' to be a criminal offence. That is the dividing line here: some people think that anything considered to give cause for concern should be criminalized. Build a legal system like that, and watch all our hard-won rights and liberties vanish in the mist.

16
0

Seconded

OK, so a doctored photo of a family member, if not actually child (abuse) porn because no abuse has taken place, is at least an invasion of privacy. You and your child, assuming they are old enough to worry about it, can suffer some degree of mental anguish because this picture exists. Plus, someone is making the mental link between your child and sex, so harassment may become an issue. Therefore you'd be right to worry and there are already laws in place to protect you from the possible consequences.

A cartoon however isn't even a picture of a real person. Bart and Lisa don't exist. It's fantasy. Making a mental link between them and sex does not _have_ to lead to a mental link between real children and sex. If someone does make that link, then they become a criminal.

Child porn is both a cause and effect of child abuse, therefore illegal. Cartoon porn is not an effect of child abuse and _may_ be a cause in a very limited number of cases. You can't go around making laws on the off chance. That way madness lies.

3
0

@Mark 65

>>"That was my first reaction to this piece but then I thought what about the mind of the individual who has been caught doing it for a second time?"

Not only that, but the police [allegedly] got tipped off by someone, which implies not only was he doing it again, but he was telling people he was doing it.

Even if the law is wrong, that does seem a bit reckless.

0
1

@cannon

>>"now is this considered illegal as she is being sexual dressed as a school girl."

If it's Australia you're talking of, that might depend how buxom she was.

2
0
Stop

Errrrrr,

It's a CARTOON.

"but you are lying if you tell me that the fact that these pixels are portraying young children has no bearing on the sexual fantasy involved."

So seeing a cartoon makes you fantasise about young children? Good god, and you think we are sick for finding it funny?

The people who complain loudest about cartoons hurting children are the only ones I know of who become aroused because a cartoon makes them fantasise about real children, and then project their sick perversions onto the rest of us. The rest of us don't find that a cartoon of the simpsons shagging makes us fantasise about anything, we laugh at it.

The analogy with family snaps is bogus as they are presumably real children. The characters (not children - Lisa and Bart don't exist) are make believe.

Some people obviously can't see there is a difference, which scares the shit out of the rest of us.

6
0
Stop

Repressed Paedophilia?

"I agree they are just blobs of mostly yellow pixels, but you are lying if you tell me that the fact that these pixels are portraying young children has no bearing on the sexual fantasy involved."

What "sexual fantasy"?

If, when you see such images, you see some sort of "sexual fantasy", that says more about you than it does about anyone else.

I think you doth protest too much.

I don't know what the symptoms of repressed paedophilia are, but I suggest you do some homework by finding out. You might find you're in the clear. Or you might find that you've unwittingly revealed to the world that you, yourself, are a repressed paedophile.

Come to think of it, I do seem to vaguely remember reading something, somewhere, about how paedophiles do perceive (non-existent, delusionary) sexuality in images of children (presumably including cartoon children) that the rest of us are oblivious to. I'm wondering if that's the nature of your "sexual fantasy".

Now I'm beginning to wonder if this chronic, growing paedo-hysteria might actually be fuelled by repressed paedophilia. The more it grows, the more it's repressed, and the worse it gets - a vicious circle of self-repression. Might that be the awful truth of it?

3
0
Flame

GO TO JAIL!

"OK so no children were hurt in the making of the specific "artwork" but if that is your criterion then I would ask any parents out there the following. Would you be happy if someone took one of your family snaps of some innocent situation and modified it so that it looked like your children were engaged in sexual activity. If not why not? No children were hurt in the making of the "artwork" so no harm done?!"

No, I wouldn't be happy. I'd really dislike it. A lot. But not as much as I dislike what you've posted.

In a free society, we don't criminalise people for things we simply dislike - no matter how much we might dislike them.

But since you seem to believe that strong dislike of something is an acceptable basis for criminalisation, and since I (and plenty of others by the look of the thumbs) very strongly dislike your post, you will now have to accept the implication of your own position: GO TO JAIL!

And don't try pleading freedom of expression in defence of your post, since that's what you're seeking to deny other people, even when their expressions are kept entirely private.

2
0
Coat

Cool

Can the author of the London Olympics logo be convicted too.

2
0

If innapropriate pictures of simpsons characters count as child porn...

Then surely everyone who has an Olympics 2012 logo somewhere in their posession is guilty?

5
0
WTF?

Weird

They're drawings. As long as this guy carries on in private, I don't see where the victim is?

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Totally Unjustifiable

There is no victim. This is the very definition of a 'victimless crime', a reality not lost on those seeking to criminalise others, merely ignored in the interests of the witchunt. Thus, it has ever been with moral crusaders. They really do consider drawings and cartoons as legitimate examples of actual child abuse; think about that. That's where we are at.

Despite an acknowledged lack of evidence to show that anyone who 'possesses' such drawings then goes on to offend against real children (the favourite justification from the prosecutors), LEA's and child advocates best interests are served by pursuing these nonsensical and unjust laws - with the paedogeddon now all but out of control there is nobody left to stop them, or call them to their senses.

It is patently idiotic to call a cartoon, however 'explicit', actual child abuse and to make it's owner or creator a sex offender. How can that ever be justified? Really? Meanwhile, we already see the likes of CEOP here in the UK calling for the outright criminalisation of fictional writing describing sex acts considered illegal. In other words, the creation of the ultimate 'thoughtcrime' for writing one's own thoughts and fantasies. A 'crime' for which one will be rendered a sex offender, stripped of job, home and even freedom. Be in no doubt: the appetite for destruction on the part of our moral guardians knows no bounds.

We already know if CEOP asks, CEOP gets. Not long now before a whole new section of society can be enrolled into the ever-swelling ranks of the newly-criminalised.

11
0
Anonymous Coward

I think its time...

Isn't it about time that we raided all the so called "fine art" museums and burned the horrible pictures showing naked children.

Thinking a bit more on this, we should also take DNA of everyone who walks into those museums...they must be hotbeds for paedos.

5
0
Paris Hilton

Lisa Simpson

Can anyone explain why the logo for the 2012 Olympics is Lisa Simpson giving someone's trouser snake a little suck?

1
0
WTF?

is it just me

Or does anyone else find the above post to be a bit too creepy?

0
0
Bronze badge
WTF?

It's not just you

Until I read about the 2012 logo 'interpretation' in the news I never noticed the apparent 'similarity' to said sex act. Now I do sort of but it's a bit of a stretch tbh. A bit like saying some stars looks like a hunter clubbing a bear to death.

0
1
WTF?

Hey everyone

this is the same guy - look, they have the same name - anonymous coward - he's just trying to distract attention from his post. I am the same guy too. No, wait, what?

0
0
Silver badge
Flame

This opens up an interesting welfare exploit...

Let's see... Possession of pictures of childlike cartoon characters is child pornography. Child pornography is the exploitation of children. REAL children. Therefore, a cartoon child is now recognised in law as having the same rights as a real child.

OK. I have a number of Poser renders of 3D models including some of children and young people (not doing anything immoral mind!). I have stories of the lives of the people depicted in these images. That means, that if imaginary characters are now accorded the same rights of protection under Australian law as real people, that means I could theoretically register them with Centrelink (Australia's social security department) as dependents and receive welfare payments for them.

And when I'm arrested for welfare fraud, I can rightly point out to the judge that since possession of images of my own imaginary characters doing immoral acts constitutes possession of child pornography, then those characters must by definition be protected by the same human rights legislation as protects real children and are therefore entitled to welfare payments.

It would be an interesting court case. I would lose, of course, but turning the result into a media circus would then severely damage the agenda of these fucking witch-hunting bastards in the eyes of the public.

14
0

on the other hand

You may run in to difficulties when you fail to send them to school. Not to mention keeping them locked inside your computer for all these years. That amounts to slavery and personally I think the police should have your children taken into care and lock you safely behind bars. Or something like that.

3
0
Joke

Re: on the other hand

Excellent! Then they can become part of the statistics of abusive parents, put in to foster care (potentially as characters in the next Sims game), and enter into an endless cycle of moving between families who find the emotional of the needs too demanding and pawn them off to the Government for care until they're 18 years old. At that time, they will relive their childhood experiences by subjugating those they care for to the same treatment they had as a child, and the cycle continues!

Part of the problem, not the solution!

</tongueincheek>

1
0
Silver badge
Boffin

but in that case...

the guy with the Simpsons porn should've got off because Bart and Lisa are over 18. No, wait, it's the appearance that counts, so they should've decided he was a child because he has small breasts and protected him by placing him in foster care, and arrested Lisa and Bart for child abuse.

Nooo... noooo..... it's too confusing

1
0
Stop

Well so much for 4chan then

I'm glad I that I don't live there

What's that Bruno Bear? Ursula Von Der Leyen is posting STOPP Signs over the Internet?

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

0
0

OZ in the new inquisition era

OZ - from a British penal colony to a puritanical country of obscure inquisition values, sign of the new times.

Somehow looks a good title for a controversial book.

0
0
Unhappy

Ouch

Plea-bargains have a lot to answer for. This guy should never have had to plead guilty to holding child "exploitation" images. These are drawings; no children were exploited.

3
0

Quick question

If The Simpsons has been running for around 20 years, and Bart was 10 years old and Lisa 11 at the start of series 1, wouldn't that make them both consenting adults by now, seeing as they are roughly 30 years of age?

Aside from that, I don't know what's worse: being sent to jail for something as stupid as Simpsons Porn, or knowing that there is someone so tight-arsed that they actually decided to turn someone over the police for lewd drawings of said cartoon characters.

I'm surprised no one in Oz has been sent to jail for possessing Hentai... which is curious.

1
0
Go

In the UK...

The law states that the person simply has to look under 18, the actual age is irrelevant.

Which suggests young looking porn stars could take the UK gov to the European courts for unfair restriction of trade.

1
0
Joke

Second Offence

I hear the first time he was prosecuted for having a copy of Nevermind by Nirvana

0
0

Age

All the Simpsons are at least 20 years old....even Maggie!

How on earth this can be classified as child porn is beyond me. Sure, I can think of better things to get myself off with than a cartoon of Lisa, but each to their own.

1
0
Joke

*joke* Disgusting!....

"The images included characters from The Simpsons, The Powerpuff Girls and The Incredibles"

That's sick, its totally disgusting! Inter-studio cartoon p0rn! I mean come on, you can't have someone from Disney doing it with someone from Fox or Cartoon Network, you gotta keep it from within the same production company!

Joking aside, I'm amazed drawn lines and coloured shapes on a computer screen or bit of paper could be considered porn. Would this mean you could get banged up in Oz for drawing a sausage on the lap of a Mr Man?

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Queensland...

Where walking on the street was once illegal...

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/interventions/years/8bjelke.htm

Home of the cane toad, white-shoe wearing property developers and too many god botherers.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

@Queensland

Queensland... → #

Posted Thursday 28th January 2010 11:08 GMT

Where walking on the street was once illegal...

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/interventions/years/8bjelke.htm

Home of the cane toad, white-shoe wearing property developers and too many god botherers.

Thats really unfair, Queensland is a full of culture as Sir Les Patterson could tell you.

0
0
WTF?

Look into my eyes,not around the eyes...

Wy don't they just employ Derren Brown and convict people for the images they make in their heads?

0
0

"He was also put on the sex offenders register."

Will nobody think of the cartoon children?

1
0
Black Helicopters

I'm not paranoid, but...

Some of these political types are quite clearly paranoid and delusional. I too laughed at the silly pictures, there are in no way erotic and it makes you wonder about the mindset that does think they are porn. It says a lot more about the lawyers than the poor sad aussie that's just been cuffed.

I want to go to a new planet, this one is f*£%£d!

3
0
Gold badge
WTF?

Playmobil

I know some will ask for a Playmobil reconstruction, however I would suggest that El Reg does not, and if fact deletes some of the past Playmobil reconstructions given the crazy laws going around these days!

0
2
Anonymous Coward

Fritzed

God help any old hippies in Blighty or Australia who still have a copy of "Fritz the cat" or its sequel lurking in the attic. I doubt any amount of critical acclaim, the fact that it was shown at the Cannes film festival or the producers claim that "Animals having sex isn't pornography" will cut much mustard with M'lud, should the police take one of their famously casual dislikes to you.

On that note, I must go and burn the doodles on my A-level note books.

0
0
FAIL

How is this exploitation?

No one got hurt. There are no victims. You might be able to claim copyright infringement but since Matt Groening is unlikely to ever publish porn it can't be called loss of earnings. I don't believe what Kurt did was an offence, just a bit sick. He needs help not a fine.

5
0

"Rule 34" is now a crime

Seriously, you couldn't make it up. But for the fact that someone's life has been ruined, this would be hilarious.

2
0
(Written by Reg staff)

Re: I'm sue if it was a second offence with rel child porn it would have been a longer sentence still.

Good grief. What a depressing comment. I really hate to use the expression, but what you're talking about here is the support of punishment for thought crime, in effect.

I shall now stand aside and await a massive onslaught of words to this effect to be moderated forthwith. Happy days.

11
0
FAIL

OK the biggest problem here...

The biggest problem here is that if having Drawings, sketches, or cartoons of completly fictional characters that "look underage" (Lisa and bart are actually over 20 years old now...) is treated the same as real CP, then FFS why not just go get real CP! seeing as you'll be treated the same either way. *sigh*.

I mean wasn't there a case a while back of someone convicted of CP for taking a perfectly legal pic of a topless girl and "reducing" her breas size as he prefered petite girls but to the police this now looked like CP and because it was "edited" was treated as such even though it wasn't?

The worlds gone crazy

I hope they never find the pics of me and my ex! she was an A cup and young looking (but 19), would I get done for CP if I decided the picture was too dark and "edited it" to make it look brighter because the judge thought it made my GF look underage?

1
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums