THE BORE
General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: pilonv1 on December 08, 2008, 06:42:41 PM
-
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24771973-16947,00.html
DRAWINGS of The Simpsons characters engaging in sexual acts with one another have resulted in a Sydney man being convicted on child pornography charges.
In the NSW Supreme Court yesterday, judge Michael Adams upheld a decision to convict Alan John McEwan for possessing child pornography after determining that a fictional cartoon character could be considered to "depict a person" under state and commonwealth law.
Justice Adams ruled the word "person" included imaginary or fictional characters and that an unrealistic representation of a figure did not preclude that figure from being a "person".
McEwan was convicted of possessing child pornography and using his computer to access child pornography in February after his computer was found to contain pictures of Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson having sex with one another.
The male figures in the cartoons had what appeared to be human genitalia, the local court magistrate said at the time, as did other characters depicted in the cartoons. The magistrate told McEwan he would have been jailed had the images involved real children.
Instead, McEwan was fined $3000 and ordered to enter into a two-year good behaviour bond in respect of each charge.
:lol :lol :-\ :'(
-
So does that mean a picture of a child furry is a person too?
-
of course not, furries aren't human and deserve less rights than rats
-
The magistrate told McEwan he would have been jailed had the images involved real children.
Yeah, no shit. Don't know what the hell this bizarre interpretation of the law is, though. I'm assuming this will be appealed.
-
That's fucking ridiculous. :-\
-
I really hope this gets appealed. I mean, fuck, most people probably have shit like this in their cache just from ads.
-
or what if someone emails them around
he should use the defense that since the show started in 1990 they'd be at least 18 by now.
-
:lol
... actually, considering the judge is arguing that cartoon characters can be considered "people", your argument makes a lot of sense.
-
Then they'd have to get cartoon timeline nerds in to argue for and against.
-
Weren't they trying to pass some laws like this in Japan?