Comments | _leareth: (без темы)

_leareth

(Untitled)

Jan 28, 2010 20:49

This is not a repeat from 2008.

Queensland man in court over cartoon child pornography.

AN IPSWICH man has admitted downloading graphic cartoon porn images featuring child characters from The Simpsons and The Powerpuff Girls TV shows ( Read more... )

censorship, law

Comments 5

disprove January 28 2010, 10:52:53 UTC

That is scary as fuck.

kcdl January 28 2010, 14:29:45 UTC

It is an interesting issue. His case is a bit different by the fact that he previously possessed real child porn. However I find it bizarre to think anyone could be charged soley over cartoon child porn.

After all isn't the crime the fact that children are being exploited/abused rather than the fact they get off on it?

There was a item on Hungry Beast about pedophiles seeking preventitive treatment before they consider offending.It makes me wonder if going after people in this sort of way is going make them more likely to offend since they aren't even allowed "passive cartoon child exploitation" as an outlet for their fantasies. I'm not highly convinced about rehabilitation for sex offenders (esp. when I think about cases like Jayee Lee Dugard and the sick fuck who was let out early before kidnapping her). However I know I'd rather have them getting off over Bart Simpson naked than actually kidnapping and raping a little kid (or more likely their own kid or one they know).

maiyu_c January 29 2010, 07:43:37 UTC

oh dear, that includes a Tokyo Babylon Subaru and Seishirou pairing huh? :O

_leareth January 29 2010, 12:06:13 UTC

Probably yeah XD though for myself at least, I write Subaru above legal age LOL

(The comment has been removed)

_leareth February 2 2010, 12:25:48 UTC

I'm going to assume you're asking about how Australian law would treat the material depicting the characters as described in those situations. Also just to be clear, you're not asking -- or getting -- legal advice, I'm just explaining :)

In Australia there are two levels of law: federal and state. Both levels have criminal laws that criminalise the production, dissemination and possession of child pornography. The language of the federal child pornography laws and the language of each state's child pornography laws differs, but the overall meaning and premise is the same and they have much the same elements. Both refer to material that depicts or appears to depict 'a person' who appears to be a child (a person under the age of 18 years) engaged in sexual activity or a victim of abuse. There is caselaw that says that the definition of 'a person' includes fictional persons. So applying that to your examples ( ... )