Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
I have a problem with any drawing being considered "child" pornography. I mean, if it came from the artist's imagination, who is being harmed? The imaginary child?
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
punkdavid wrote:
I have a problem with any drawing being considered "child" pornography. I mean, if it came from the artist's imagination, who is being harmed? The imaginary child?
Wasn't that the rationale that the Supreme Court used to strike down a ban on computer-generated kiddie porn?
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
bart d. wrote:
No way in hell I'm clicking that link.
the link is the article that inspired the thread. the title of this thread uses the same graphic the article uses, so if this is offensive then the article will be too.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:54 am Posts: 10731 Location: The back of a Volkswagen
Quote:
[T]he plaintiff was convicted ... of possessing child pornography contrary to s 91H(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (the Act) and using his computer to access child pornography material contrary to s 474.19(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Code). The alleged pornography comprised a series of cartoons depicting figures modelled on members of the television animated series "The Simpsons". Sexual acts are depicted as being performed, in particular, by the "children" of the family. The male figures have genitalia which is evidently human, as do the mother and the girl.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
