Warning: Missing argument 2 for wpdb::prepare(), called in /home/roblev16/weeklyrob.com/wp-content/themes/canvas/functions/admin-functions.php on line 692 and defined in /home/roblev16/weeklyrob.com/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 1147
Lisa Simpson: Child Porn Star | weeklyrob

Lisa Simpson: Child Porn Star

Lisa Simpson. Pissed Off.

I’ve posted before about the ethical questions surrounding “virtual” pornography, (especially virtual child pornography). That is, artificial representations of people (or animals) having sex. No real person was having sex, or in any way abused or humiliated.

I can see arguments on both sides, and I don’t know what the shrinks say (if they say anything). That is, would this be a way for pedophiles and others to satisfy their urges without hurting anyone, or would it make them want the real thing even more, thereby putting innocent people at risk? I don’t know.

In Australia, an appellate court has upheld the conviction of a guy for possession of child pornography on his computer. The porn in question? An animation of Simpsons characters having sex.

The judge felt that, even though Simpsons characters aren’t human-like in most ways (skin color, fingers, hair, etc.), and even though no real children or adults were actually exploited in any way, this kind of video could “fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children.”

I haven’t read the brief, or seen the video. I haven’t heard the arguments on either side. But from the very little that I know, I think that this ruling is absolutely insane.

I’d like to know what the judge bases this ruling on. Are there psychologists out there who think that pedophiles start with dirty Simpsons videos before moving on to the real thing? Where does this “fuel” argument come from?

If this were a cartoon of life-like children then I could see it, but this is the Simpsons, for crying out loud. It’s hard to believe that Bart and Lisa are really titillating enough to fuel a market in live children. Am I wrong here?

Link

5 Responses to “Lisa Simpson: Child Porn Star”

  1. Thomas 08. Dec, 2008 at 11:22 pm #

    This is a difficult one. I can certainly understand the motivations for making such a ruling as it will send out a message of what wont be tolerated but i still find i hard to understand, seeing as how we are talking about fictitious animated characters.
    What is really confusing me is the fact that earlier this year the NSW Government decided not to pursue charges against Sydney based photographer Bill Henson for producing images of a naked teenage girl. To my knowledge the reason behind the decision was that the photography did not depict a sexual act. The Australian community certainly was divided over this issue although most of us agreed it was child pornography.
    So i really cant understand how they can charge a man for possessing animated pornography, yet not pursue Henson as i think this would have served as a much better example.

  2. weeklyrob 09. Dec, 2008 at 9:36 am #

    Yeah, but should they be ruling on cases in order to send a message, or to follow the law?

    To me, the question is whether the law on the books against child pornography was intended to stop stuff like this. (I didn’t see the Henson pic, so I can’t comment on that, but I do see the irony you point out.)

  3. BruceS 09. Dec, 2008 at 11:14 am #

    I just can’t get over the fact that someone went to a lot of trouble to produce a Simpsons’ porn video. That’s hilarious!

    I don’t have any problem with pictures of actual naked children, as long as there is no sexual activity involved and no intent or expectation to provoke sexual interest in or activity with children. Given how many perverts there are out there, that probably means banning the exposure of ankles.

    As for animated porn, even that which looks fairly real, I don’t believe it should be banned unless and until it can be clearly demonstrated that it does, in fact, substantially increase the likelihood of pedophilia. If it turns out that it acts as a suitable substitute, let it be. The only kind of speech, visual depictions, etc. that should be banned is that which may be offensive to someone, somewhere, for some obscure reason.

  4. weeklyrob 09. Dec, 2008 at 11:26 am #

    I love the last line, Bruce. Lucky this blog has such a small readership, or people would miss the humor and go all rabid on you.

  5. BruceS 10. Dec, 2008 at 9:43 am #

    You wish. With a larger readership, people would miss the humor and many would agree with that statement.

Leave a Reply

Subscribe without commenting