FA+
Shop
Going to jail for Simpsons porn
15 years ago
No, not me. A middle school teacher in Meridian (Idaho?) has been pleat guilty to possessing "visual representations of child sex abuse". From details I can find (which are few) the teacher possessed some 70+ images of naughty cartoon images on his computer, most of which where of the Simpsons, and other youthful cartoon characters. An investigation began when it was discovered he was sharing these on peer to peer networks.
Now as I looked around it was stated that he had cleaning programs that deleted child porn on his computer and was actually being investigated for possession of child porn. What the reports do though is fuzz the line on actual child porn (which he should go to jail for) and cartoon porn he had downloaded. So I still don't know if he really had illegal images on his computer.
Anyway, the guy had to resign his job and could be fined $250,000 and go to prison for 10 YEARS! For having naughty cartoons on his computer! Frig, I travel to toon smut sites and I've seen lots of dirty Simpsons ads for other smut sites. Right there for everyone to see! I also found out that a few years a go Hustler printed a picture of Lisa giving oral sex (I have to confirm that though).
The whole things sounds fishy to me. Thoughts?
Source
Now as I looked around it was stated that he had cleaning programs that deleted child porn on his computer and was actually being investigated for possession of child porn. What the reports do though is fuzz the line on actual child porn (which he should go to jail for) and cartoon porn he had downloaded. So I still don't know if he really had illegal images on his computer.
Anyway, the guy had to resign his job and could be fined $250,000 and go to prison for 10 YEARS! For having naughty cartoons on his computer! Frig, I travel to toon smut sites and I've seen lots of dirty Simpsons ads for other smut sites. Right there for everyone to see! I also found out that a few years a go Hustler printed a picture of Lisa giving oral sex (I have to confirm that though).
The whole things sounds fishy to me. Thoughts?
Source
link 1
link 2
link 3
No kiddie porn there. Just drawings.
You gotta understand one thing. the Media likes to make things out more then they actualy are to get you to read. This is why I largely ignore the media
I've been followin alot on these laws since it started a few years back. However, if you live in Australia or the UK, you're pretty much fucked.
And it implies that a guy like me, who actually likes some little boobs, is a pedophile.
I know of Australia's incredibly warped censorship laws, but someone needs to get their ass kicked for this.
But ads? Never heard of such a thing. (And I've been paying attention.)
Thus far, it hasn't faced the First Amendment challenge that will get it struck down _again_. Which, of course, will be promptly followed by a new law banning it again.
It's things like this that make me want to put in constitutional provisions for turfing politicians who keep voting for unconstitutional laws.
But in uneducated portions of the public, people generally *do* believe in some sort of magic.
I actively support the live incineration of pedophiles, followed by a pizza party
Don't get me wrong. I think pedos are wrong and I'm not defending them. I am defending the right to draw/paint images that I, or someone else, wishes.
It's completely not the same leap of "logic."
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2284962/
... you got some splainin' to do.
This is a big 'your deviant sexual fetish is more deviant than my sexual fetish' here. You know I actually know people who'd love to put the likes of you in jail, what with your furry and your day dreamed incest and fantasy rape/kidnapping, right? Right right?
Yet I foresee problems involved...
If, however, the former teacher did house actual child pornography on his computer, like digital photos or film, then he deserves jail time.
It's usually pretty obvious when someone is collecting kiddy porn. They don't have one file. They don't have twenty files. They have 2,000 or more...
Who I really want caught and punished are the people why make genuine kiddy pornt. Arguably, they're the only ones harming children in any way. Having kiddy portn is like having an ounce of pot. You didn't grow it, you only aid and abet those whjo did.
Sadly a lot of these 'feel good' thought police laws have been passed and used to send people to prison and ruin their lives for having never done anything wrong mainly because these legislators can't tell fantasy from reality and need some easy 'wins' in the court room rather than go and find the real predators. So they basically create criminals where there really aren't rather than catch the real ones and make the public think it's safer than it actually is and that they're doing their job when they aren't.
Let alone Toon Smut artists, quite a few furries would be in deep water if that went though.
We live in a messed up society where people are afraid of everything they don't understand. I hate humans.
The main problem is that this law, I believe, will stay active until someone works to challenge it. Until then, this means that what could be considered an underage character on your computer/possession could land you in jail, and I know a majority of defendants to this won't hesitate to sign a plea bargain or take a lighter charge to avoid long jail time or a 'sexual predator' tag.
I guess they really prefer people get away from their drawing tablets (artist) / bookcase/PC (consumer) and simply go out and molest a real child. Would solve the problems, i guess. They should start to realize that some people suppress their desires and urges by buying these works, so they DON'T try to grab a real minor. But that's a higher level of common sense that should be called "uncommon sense" for these guys don't have it.
Most works also have a disclaimer reading "all characters in this work are fictional, and atleast 18 years old", i think :P
But in a drawing, there are no children being exploited and abused. In fact, there are no real human beings involved at all, and in the case of Lisa Simpson or cub porn, no depictions of life forms that could possibly even exist!
This is one great big mighty overapplication, and it has serious ramifications for misuse. Nobody wants a pedophile around, but if there are no real children being abused, and furthermore, no proven link between looking at toony pictures and looking at real child porn, then I call this a serious miscarriage of justice.
There are plenty of real pedophiles out there for the police to be investigating. They should be doing that instead of ruining people's lives because they have dirty pictures of Lisa Simpson.
Ok I will get off my soapbox now.
Thing is, he confessed to doing it and the prosecutors could only use the cartoon porn as evidence since it was the only content that could possibly be a crime. The guy is a moron, clear and simple and it speaks volumes about the quality of teachers we have.
I'mma go scour my hard drive for any cartons, now, KTHX.
But get into my mind and tell me what to think, drop dead.
Because of homeland security and judicial aproval the feds can take away your computer at the airport, if they suspect terrorist information/doctrine on the hard drive.
To search a computer physically, sure. However whats in memory, should be considered our thoughts, and no one should have a say in that.
Sorry, just an ethics article I read for class, still has me pissed off.
The idea in this law suggesting kissing between same sex, children as offensive and violates this law, stinks of the over zealous, ignorant ass wipes in Washington.
If seeing Babs kiss Fifi is ofensive and violates a law, that's bullshit!
http://books.google.com/books?id=RT.....result&res
Original article said;
(1) IP address of the crime suspect had been used to share child pornography in network.
(2) Agents found 70 of sexual cartoon images of minors in his computer.
(3) The crime suspect admitted downloading the pornographic images and also confessed to installing cleaning programs to try to erase child porn on his computer.
I think (3) linked (1) to (2). So I can think that he pleaded guilty to possession of real child porn, not cartoon porn.
In addition, I guess that writer of the article understood the difference between real child porn and cartoon porn. In (3), writer used the word "admit" for downloaded images and "confess" for child porn. If the writer understands the cartoon images are illegal, the writer might use "confess" for both actions.
English is my 2nd language, so I may missed something....
Also, I don't know about Lisa in Hustler, but I know Marge was in Playboy...
Places like Saudia Arabia may think it reasonable to punish people for free expression -- such as drawing Moe Hammad -- but free countries are supposed to be more enlightened.
Nonrequired Element of Offense.— It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.
In the Dark Ages, animals "guilty" of killing or injuring a human being could be tried and executed. Occasionally, even inanimate objects were taken to court.
If you can't tell, I'm against the idea of getting onto people for cartoon stuff. Drawings are not real. So I the punishment is a bit ridiculous.