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 …
"The judge said the sentence was so harsh because it was Milner's second offence."
But, but, but, if this was indeed his second offense of possessing 'child exploitation material', then 12 months+fine is a very light sentence. I mean, if this was a serious crime of possessing serious child pr0n, with real pictures and real victims then 12 years would have been more likely.
But seeing as how there where no victims, no exploitation and no harm done, why bother with sentencing at all? Even in the pre-internet days we all had sexually explicit material of well known cartoon characters and things like that. Sure, most of us lost interest in these things at age 17... but although the thought is tempting I don't think we should start jailing people for having a pubertal sense of humor.
Paris, she's still legal to look at.
I doubt very much that there's a lot of correlation between consumers of cartoon child porn and consumers of real child porn. People have different preferences - some are going to prefer the cartoon stuff, it'll be their thing, and it doesn't mean that they're going to 'progress' to the real nastiness. Some are going to go that route, inevitably, but making that assumption/projection in all cases is ludicrous, and dangerous.
I bet that majority of the registered sex offenders are victims of the draconian law. For sure that only a few minority of them have or could eventually molesting a child in reality.
I don’t think that exist or has been published enough evidence that point out that someone seeing porn of any kind does trigger a person the provoke such problem. From what I eared is enough for a “mental adviser” to point to that possible link in court and without any proof that in fact it has occurred or the chances of occurring are high to convict any person.
It seems to me that current judicial system prefers the easier path instead of cutting the root that causes that entire problem. It is easier to go after those that see rather than catch those that cause the real harm to produce such materials.
Based on this, the current draconian law is just an absurd … it’s the new era of Inquisition but this time it has not been created by the Vatican and Spain… and like 500 years ago people won’t be burned in public eyes but a bit worst, their life’s would always be linked to a stigma until they die.
Just a thought…it looks like the 500 year old Inquisition laws were more humane. At least the victims wouldn’t be seen alive much longer after receiving the guilty verdict.
UK's about to review/add more prostitution laws
The pure Puritanism in action by the current law makers (probably heavy pressurised by lobby groups).
How many nations have tried to eradicate prostitution and failed? Does UK think that would be the 1st nation in mankind history to solve the problem by just punishing everyone involved?
Once again is easy for the judicial system to target those that search rather than those that provide, no disrespect for the woman involved doing a public service (and I'm not referring to those forced which is a total different matter).
Politicians rather than attack the real problem of prostitution (which in this country is the lack of control) they prefer punishing everyone involved, which for sure it will only make matters worst and it won't stop prostitution.
It would be nice if one day prostitution could be eradicated and forever. But I suppose that from that day the news would be the high increase of rape cases and divorces.
These are some of the dangers of social reengineer mainly based simple puritanical views.
The only study that supported peoples belief that drawn porn leads to real porn leads to molestation was dumped by the people that made it becouse it was so flawed. The problem with giving criminals an opportunity to blame their behaviour on something else is that they normally will.
There's more evidence that shows that such things reduce the chance of offending.
But it's the same argument pulled out for years by prohibisionists, soft drugs lead to hard drugs, violent movies/games/books make people violent, porn makes people more likely to victimise woman, extreme porn makes it more likely people will abuse woman, playing dungeons and dragons makes you more likely to become a satanist. yadda yadda yadda
The interesting thing is that none of the people who have had their lives ruined have taken revenge on society yet. I'm sure someone will eventually.
... between a cartoon depicting children having sex and a cartoon depicting children getting seriously hurt or killed?
A. One is a criminal offence with jail time, fines and a lifetime on the sexual offenders register and the other is broadcast into your home every day on prime time television.
RIDICULOUS !!!
As Voltaire said (condensed), "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."
In other words, when the powers that be can make the mainstream believe that this ridiculous outcome is right, then we are all lost.
If you saw the Simpsons movie and saw Bart's junk in it and thought "Ha, that's funny!" then you should be ok.
If you saw the Simpsons movie, saw Bart's junk and thought "I'd hit that" then yes, you should. But only after submitting yourself for psychological analysis, as you clearly have difficulty differentiating fiction from reality. Just as the government of Australia do.
How contrary, the other day I was praising the Aussie attitude to the bloke who put the sexist advert on that jobsite, now today I think they're being slightly mental.
I don't see how different this cartoon porn is to kids drawing cocks on the walls of the school toilets as tradition defines is required. I'm not sure how much I'd understand even if it was an accurate representation (of children) that it constitutes a criminal offence, I'd have thought that the point was that no harm came to anyone or is likely to come to anyone as a result of the images existing.
>>"Studies indicate..."
And do these studies actually indicate what the kind of person who would get a sexual thrill from images of naked children would do if those images aren't available?
Evidently, some people are quite capable of going from being sexually oriented towards children to practical activity without the need for any intervening pictures/chatrooms/whatever, since some people have been abusing children as far back in time as you care to think about.
What reliable statistics are there to show how many practical offenders wouldn't have been expected to do anything in the absence of images of offence?
If you remove the slippery slope, might you just end up with a cliff?
Fairly clearly, with the risks of prosecution and/or serious stigma that exist, for someone to deliberately search out [real] child pornography would seem to suggest that there was already more than just a passing interest.
Also, isn't there always a risk that if everyone is told that a particular kind of pornography leads to further criminal behaviour (or that taking soft drug X typically leads to harder drugs,or whatever) that that can help some people avoid taking responsibility for their future actions, since they can write them off as somehow inevitable and/or someone else's fault?
Which studies? There have been no studies to support this claim (as if there had of been CEOP + co would have used them to support their case to have such material banned in the UK) provide links! And provide links to a study other then the discredited (so much so that its makers don't back it) one conducted in a prision where they only asked convicted peadohiles. As opposed to just a claim that they believed there was a link, and a complaint that the police hadn't been able to arrest someone they wanted to arrest becouse he hadn't broken the law.
Your statement I suspect isn't based on "studies" but claims from various anti-(insert pet hate here) and moralists. The same kind that lie about increases in sex attacks in areas when infact there were drops.
And it's the same claim wheeled out by prohibitionists over the centuries, that a little bit of this leads to a little bit of that, that leads to a whole lot of something else. In this case as with any other moral panic there is little to support their beliefs.
What studies? Conducted how?
Let me guess. Researchers interviewed convicted child molesters, asking them how they came to abuse. Rather than take full, personal responsibility for their actions, the molesters chose to blame pictures they saw. They blamed pictures, blamed other abusers, blamed society, and even blamed children for wanting to emulate fashionable adults in how they dress. They took the opportunity to spread the blame around, so they wouldn't have to accept that they were entirely, exclusively responsible for their own actions.
Is that how it goes?
If so, what happens if we, as a society, validate such feeble excuses by actually legislating accordingly? Does it help stop the abuse? Or does it encourage the abusers to put the blame elsewhere instead of taking personal responsibility?
If these abusers are so easily influenced by what they see and read, then they'd surely be far more influenced by all that stuff in the media about how abhorrent, disgusting, unacceptable, etc, paedophilia and the abuse of children are. They must know they're in a society that (apparently) overwhelmingly hates their guts. And yet, strangely, they don't seem to be so easily influenced after all.
Does that, perhaps, so utterly blast that picture-blaming nonsense so completely out of the water that it's not even on this planet any more?
.. that following the introduction of the Dangerous Pictures Act in the UK we now have the Dangerous Drawings Act which, like the Australian Law, means it is "an offence for a person to be in possession of a prohibited image of a child."
See http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g62
It is sufficient that an image *looks* like a child (in someone else's eyes) that will get you convicted.
Great, another victory for liberty and common sense...
It is quite possible that the legal system is using this as an opportunity to promote discussion about these new laws as passed by Parliament. Nothing like fastidious interpretation leading to a controversial conviction to focus attention. Keep in mind that what is said about a bill in Hansard can be used in the interpretation of that bill.
Hmm. Maybe some enterprising AV manufacturer should add "Detection and removal of known dodgy JPGs" to their features list.
sounds like it could be useful, especially with the recent rise in smut downloader trojans which attempt to extort money from their victims.
AC for obvious reasons.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
