(Post a new comment)

	souris 2008-12-08 02:32 pm UTC (link)
	You know, I would have liked to know this was about The Simpsons pr0n before I clicked on that link. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	solelyfictional 2008-12-08 03:55 pm UTC (link)
	It wasn't what I was expecting either. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	chaos_theory 2008-12-08 04:10 pm UTC (link)
	For sure. Ick. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	iwanttobeasleep 2008-12-08 05:05 pm UTC (link)
	It's not like you see anything. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	chaos_theory 2008-12-09 05:10 am UTC (link)
	When I followed the link there were thumbnails that are, while very small, still fairly horrifying to be coming up on my work computer. Perhaps I shouldn't be online at all at work, and I know that by now I should be disinclined to click unspecified links, and so that's my fault, but, you know, nothing wrong with giving a little fair warning. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	iwanttobeasleep 2008-12-09 05:11 am UTC (link)
	Fair enough. But those are from the Simpson's TV show, at least. Or the movie, I'm not sure. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	frequentmouse 2008-12-09 05:59 am UTC (link)
	Both from broadcast episodes. They were also not on the page until after I posted. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	rosehiptea 2008-12-08 05:54 pm UTC (link)
	Me too. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	ilya 2008-12-08 02:43 pm UTC (link)
	This kind of makes me worry about all the manga that I have in my HD. Especially since the artwork makes everyone look so you. Lol. (Reply to this)

	charmian 2008-12-08 03:13 pm UTC (link)
	Hmm, so it seems like Australian law may be coming closer to Canadian law on this kind of thing. (Reply to this)

	tunxeh 2008-12-08 04:23 pm UTC (link)
	The Fark discussion is less inane than usual for Fark. (Reply to this)

	tunxeh 2008-12-08 05:39 pm UTC (link)
	Neil Gaiman weighs in (Reply to this)(Thread)

	frequentmouse 2008-12-08 06:26 pm UTC (link)
	Thanks, that's interesting. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	tree 2008-12-08 05:53 pm UTC (link)
	I hope this judge and his ruling go down in memory as a joke. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	fools_game 2008-12-08 09:43 pm UTC (link)
	Unfortunately, it's based off legislation from years ago. In Australia, non-photographic depictions of fictional children in sexual situations is onsidered child porn. Which makes those annoying cartoon porn pop-ups you get on some sites less annoying and more dangerous. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	keri 2008-12-09 02:22 am UTC (link)
	I remember when that ruling came out and all the snarry fans got into a bit of a tizzy with worry about their archives. Funtimes. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	moonjaguar 2008-12-09 04:17 am UTC (link)
	The legislation that had me bailing from Skyehawke when I saw that redirect and warning way back when. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	pfeffermuse 2008-12-08 06:04 pm UTC (link)
	Does this ruling now mean that the cartoon section on FF.net is now RPF/RPS? (Reply to this)

silrana
2008-12-08 07:10 pm UTC (link)

This really isn't that unusual considering that not long ago that sort of cartoon was illegal in the U.S. too. Many in law enforcement were not happy when the courts ruled that only photos or videos of actual people were illegal, considering how much cartoon character porn is used in the grooming process by pedophiles.

And I've seen the pictures they're talking about, along with porn versions of Disney and other characters easily recognizable by children. Ones involving incest are especially popular. I work computer crime, and I see them on loads of computers owned by pedos.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

frequentmouse
2008-12-08 07:32 pm UTC (link)

considering how much cartoon character porn is used in the grooming process by pedophiles

By that measure, cute pets, youth sports, Sunday school, and any contact between adults and children should be firmly outlawed. Predatory pedophilia existed long before the internet, or even photography; that pedophiles use any tool available to groom their victims isn't an argument to get rid of all the tools.

Look, I don't like or approve pornish manips, manga, porn parodies of existing media, and any number of things that other people think are amusing. But this is just a silly, silly court decision, and undermines respect for the underlying reason for international child porn laws: to identify and rescue the children being abused in the production of filmed and photographed porn. Arresting the consumers doesn't get the kids who are being hurt away from their abusers.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

silrana
2008-12-08 08:43 pm UTC (link)

The thing is, for the things you listed there are lots of other reasons to have them besides enticing children. This stuff? Not so much.

You have to realize, we aren't talking about something like Marge showing a boob and looking flirty, like you might see in fanart. We're talking fairly crude cartoons of things like Lisa performing oral sex on Homer. Many of the Bart-Lisa cartoons I see have Bart 'aged up' to look like a teenager to go with the older person-little kid image that the pedophile wants to impress upon the child.

These pictures are carefully tailored for their appeal. They use familiar characters in situations that give the idea that adults and children have sex all the time and it's no big deal. Some of it goes even farther. Once you've seen Rescue Ranger characters in bondage gear and ball gags and the picture has obviously been made to appeal to children rather than adults, you lose the "oh it's just harmless fun" reaction.

As for your last point, I disagree. Going after the consumer is *very* important. To put it bluntly, there wouldn't be trafficking in child porn if it wasn't profitable. The very best thing we can do is put the fear in these people that their faces will get plastered all over the six o' clock news so all their friends and neighbors will see what they've been up to.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	frequentmouse 2008-12-08 09:00 pm UTC (link)
	I'm not going to try to argue this here, but I will say that the difference between our positions is very much the dividing line between punitive and harm reduction theories of law enforcement. (Reply to this)(Parent)

luxshine
2008-12-08 09:31 pm UTC (link)

This is one of the things that really bother me when the subject comes out. The fact that no one seems to realize that of course there's a difference between content tailored for pedophiles and pedophile-grooming needs and fandom content, or, as you just put it up, a picture made for adults and one for kids.

And I agree that it's important to go after the consumer of the first type of content. Because honestly, why *else* would an adult want to have a set of porn art tailored for children-grooming? (as opposed to fandom-style art, tailored for adult enjoyment?)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

silrana
2008-12-08 11:17 pm UTC (link)

And I hate to tell people, but the line between fandom and pedos is not as sharp and distinct as some would like to think. I've seen computers where one folder holds their kiddie porn and another holds their anime convention cosplay pics, or photos from the scifi cons they've attended. Just because someone is involved in fandom doesn't make their motives pure as the wind-driven snow.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

luxshine
2008-12-08 11:47 pm UTC (link)

I think that's the main problem with this kind of arguments in-fandom. I once made the question in my lj on why someone writing RPS, or non-con was automatically thought to be a stalker, a psycho and someone with obvious problems and just a step away from criminal action, but someone who wrote and draw shota art (where the child in question was ten or younger) was just a fan and of course wouldn't ever dream of hurting a real child. I don't think that the mere possession of shota or lolicon should be criminal, but I don't think it can just be ignored in cases where it's obvious they're part of a bigger picture.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

keri
2008-12-09 02:33 am UTC (link)

I'm kind of curious now, from all the crap that I come across on the 'net, how to tell the difference. I mean, in my youthful forays to 4chan, the Rescue Ranger image you described would have been set up as an example of furry kink/weirdness. Is it more of a difference like in how children's cartoons are drawn with different shapes and colors than adults' cartoons? (I'm thinking of something like JoJo's Circus compared to Robot Chicken, or the teenager-oriented Batman compared to Pokemon, which aired at about the same time when I was in middle school.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

silrana
2008-12-09 03:19 am UTC (link)

I'm not sure there is any way to give specifics. It's just years of experience digging through people's hard drives has shown me what sort of pictures are likely to show up on a pedophile's computer. You see a lot of the same pictures and videos over and over, because they're posted at free sites or are teasers for pay sites. That's why I wasn't surprised by the ruling. There is a set of Simpsons cartoons I've seen on dozens of computers from child porn cases.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	keri 2008-12-09 03:30 am UTC (link)
	Ah, okay. I understand! I'm just curious about it now, I guess because it seems so odd and yet familiar, with all the furry character porn I've seen (however inadvertently), on Encyclopedia Dramatica or even DeviantArt. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	electricwitch 2008-12-09 11:13 pm UTC (link)
	That's really interesting, it makes a lot of sense to tailor it specifically to children but I'd never thought of it. Still, considering the amount of people who save things like this without knowing that, would you argue for making possession of this punishable, instead of just being able to use it for evidence? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

silrana
2008-12-10 12:48 pm UTC (link)

I have mixed feelings. There are a number of this sort of cartoon that I have *never* seen on a computer that wasn't connected to a child porn case. Forex, I don't see them on my credit card fraud or homicide cases. But I do see regular porn, and even cartoon porn and manga/anime involving adults on other computers, which is perfectly legal. (Boy do I. It's the rare computer *without* any porn these days.) So I have a hard time buying the 'accidental exposure' argument.

On the other hand, I can see the potential for screw ups in the courts by judges and juries who are not as familiar with the patterns of pornography as I am. I wouldn't want to see anyone sent to jail over fanart either.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	freezer 2008-12-10 10:52 am UTC (link)
	These pictures are carefully tailored for their appeal. You've never been to The Simpsons' section on Rule#34, have you? "Carefully tailored" would be the last words I'd use to describe 75% of the stuff therin. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

silrana
2008-12-10 12:38 pm UTC (link)

I don't need to see them. What I am talking about is a particular set of Simpsons cartoons that I see over and over and over on pedophiles' computers, because that set is passed around between them. Believe me, the internet has organized a lot of people we would prefer not be organized. They have forums of their own where they swap tips and pictures, and the cartoons I'm talking about are part of the round robin.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	chibikaijuu 2008-12-11 06:37 am UTC (link)
	And somebody has also probably put them up on Rule#34, and other people have probably downloaded them for kicks. (Though I could see having the full set versus just a few making a difference.) (Reply to this)(Parent)

vorpal_blade
2008-12-09 05:24 am UTC (link)

Arresting the consumers doesn't get the kids who are being hurt away from their abusers.

Exactly. Prosecuting people looking at cartoons is a huge waste of time for the authorities, when they should be protecting REAL kids who are at risk for sexual abuse.

Way to go, Australia! I'm sure that every parent of a sexually molested kid is so glad that cartoon kids are considered as worthy of protection as your child!

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	crysiana 2008-12-08 07:33 pm UTC (link)
	Given the area that you work in, how do you feel about it? If you're comfortable sharing. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

silrana
2008-12-08 09:03 pm UTC (link)

I have mixed feelings. There is fandom stuff that is obviously not intended for kids, and there are the cartoons that are. I can understand the fear people have that judges and law enforcement could throw people in jail for stuff that has nothing to do with child abuse.

On the other hand, because of the 'I know it when I see it' factor that comes with this job, I admit I have a hard time looking at some things and having to shrug because it's not chargable. However, stuff like this does work for probable cause for more investigation.

I've seen the sort of cartoons they are talking about, maybe even the exact ones since there's a fairly standard set. There is nothing artistic or creative or fannish about them. They're just old-fashioned dirty pictures drawn rather than photographed. If they can be considered creative works, then a flasher is a performance artist.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	munchkinott 2008-12-08 07:23 pm UTC (link)
	So this image is illegal in Australia? Oh c'mon SOMEBODY had to do the 2012 Logo gag! (Reply to this)(Thread)

	tao_tao 2008-12-08 11:25 pm UTC (link)
	I know I was waiting for it! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	undomielregina 2008-12-09 05:48 pm UTC (link)
	...oh man, I think that logo is even worse than the one they were considering last time I was paying attention. WTF, my eyes! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	mindset 2008-12-08 11:43 pm UTC (link)
	apparently newspaper articles about absurd court decisions need warnings now. Who knew? Maybe they do when said court decision is about porn and pedophilia. Just a wild freaking guess. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	sisterelwood 2008-12-09 09:03 am UTC (link)
	And all this time I thought it was a given. Silly me! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	tao_tao 2008-12-08 11:45 pm UTC (link)
	Wow, bitchy much? It's always nice to know what a link is about, but that's three times true if the topic is child porn. And this is far from the most absurd decision I heard in this direction. In fact I could have told you that an Australian judge would have to decide that way. There is a reason Australian HP artists were taking their smut the fuck down a couple of years ago. (Reply to this)

	victoriabloom 2008-12-09 02:39 am UTC (link)
	(Whatever about the warning. I don't see the big deal -- it's not like the porn in question in on that page.) Anyway, aren't there obscenity laws or something else that can be used to govern these things? Besides applying child porn laws pretty much extend rights to fictional characters. (Reply to this)

	moonjaguar 2008-12-09 04:35 am UTC (link)
	In Australia, even text content about fictional non-adults in fictional sex situations can get a person branded with the Scarlet P. (Reply to this)

	tiki 2008-12-09 08:13 pm UTC (link)
	(And apparently newspaper articles about absurd court decisions need warnings now. Who knew? I myself would like a pony.) Stay classy, Frequentmouse. (Reply to this)