Australia Bans 2D Loli – Simpsons Parody Porn Conviction

Australia Bans 2D Loli – Simpsons Parody Porn Conviction

A man who downloaded Simpsons 2D parody porn has been convicted for possession of pornography featuring minors.

A Supreme Court ruling against freedom of expression in the case was a landmark one, which sets a precedent banning all 2D depictions of sex which may be construed as featuring underage participants.

The man convicted was found to have erotic parody images of iconic cartoon “The Simpsons” on his computer; he was originally charged with, and convicted for, possession of (and accessing) child pornography by a local court, with a possible ten year sentence (though he received a substantial fine and probation instead).

However, he appealed, arguing that the porn could not be considered to feature actual “people”, as they “plainly and deliberately” departed from the human form.

The judge hearing his appeal at the Supreme Court disagreed, admitting that they were “markedly and deliberately different to those of any possible human being”, but holding that realism had no place in determining whether they were depictions of people.

The judge conceded that the real purpose of the law was to stop the actual acts depicted photographically, but opted to more broadly interpret the law as being intended also to prevent artistic depictions which could “fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children”.

His verdict was to dismiss the appeal, ordering each party to cover their own costs, due to it being “the first case dealing with this difficult issue.”

Via Stuff.

This would appear to leave very little ambiguity as to the legality of loli in Australia; in the eyes of this judge, there is near to no difference between imaginary children and real ones.


    Post Comment »
    87 Comments
    Sort by: Date | Score
    Comment by MooMooCow
    19:30 11/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    For a country that started as a penal colony, those guys down there sure are anal with their laws.

    Comment by Anonymous
    22:46 11/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    Thus why they are so "anal"

    Avatar of takuya13
    Comment by takuya13
    00:19 12/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    unicef has taken australia too D:

    Comment by Dirty Ralph
    17:56 14/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    and yet here i am.

    anal? maybe not, but australia enjoys more freedoms than any other country in the world. here, if someone provokes you into hitting them, the provoker can be charged with intentionally starting a fight, while the hitter merely gets a warning. it's great, provided you can prove you got provoked.

    moreover, the simpsons parody of australia is just that, a parody. everyone over here loves that episode purely cause its so far removed from the truth that its ridiculous.

    sure we got some real fucked up law makers and breakers, but mean while, in america, if you suspect someone is thinking of breaking the law, you have to report it, even if they haven't stated a desire to do so, or even shown implications of doing so, or whatever. you as a citizen have to report it. i think that's a super power country thinking that it's citizens have super powers ie. telepathy.

    more over, as shown on this very site, you can be arrested in japan for saying hello to a minor, or imprisoned for up to 2 years for adultery in korea.

    yeah, you try telling me austrlia is anal.

    Comment by Robocop
    18:10 14/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    tool. as an australian i can't even sit in my local park reading graphic novels i borrowed from the library not 50 meters away or listen to music without some freak thinking i'm there to prey upon children.

    yes i am bearded. yes i am over 6' tall. yes i am over 110kg. and yes i do like flaunting my law breaking activities wherever i can.

    but this does not make me a bad person. and yet, i get treated as a suspect person because i match ned kelly's description. because parents feel they couldn't defend their children against me should i try something at my size. because i enjoy "j" walking in front of cops.

    crap. all crap. where is the freedom in the way i get treated when i have done nothing wrong. jam that firmly up your arse. the justice system here in australia is shit. you don't pay tax, you get 6 years in jail, you kill someone, you're out free in 2 weeks.

    in all honesty son, i think you are a complete fool and a wanker. but what makes me really angry is that you spelt australia wrong in your last line.

    Comment by nicelydone
    00:29 14/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Hey so stop hanging around in parks with a stupid beard, and just genreal fitting the description of child pervert... youre not an idiot, image in general is important, and by depiction of human nature, governs how we percieve the world companies government and other human beings, think about it.. if you changed youre "child predator image/ location/activites/life, you probably would have a girlfriend or wife or better job or woteva, look im not saying they are right or you are wrong but majority rules lets face it, and the only way to change is thru. exchanging ideas, and better education... but in the mean time stop putting on youre ned kelly uniform, until such time occurs dont blame the system...(even it is shit, knowing its shit and then placing yourself in a perfect position to be shitted on[intentional] makes you even shitter and potentially a maoning whining retard...

    nicelydone

    Avatar of Robocop
    Comment by Robocop
    10:11 06/04/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    it's not that i'm whining or moaning about it at all. it's the fact that people have a pre-imagined view of what a predator should look like and all the slight deviations there of. i'm sure if i looked like the "blob" from the infamous 1953 film (which won best special effects that year too) of the same name, i would also be viewed as a predator.

    my point being, it doesn't matter what a person looks like these days, or what your current activity, people will always look at you with suspicion if you in some way or form fit a mental image that they have of somebody who would be breaking the law. and it's not just Australia like this. it's happening all over the world. almost all catholic priests are regarded in this way, soon all cops and judges too, with doctors and teachers to follow.
    shit you can't be a male teacher in Australia now unless you also have a female teacher present in the room with you at all times.

    more over, why should i stop sitting in my local park, listening to music or reading comics. because of some fucking retard's opinion of me. the lady in the local toy store used to look at me weird, coming in as a guy without any kids to buy some figures. she has now accepted the fact that i like to buy them for myself and that i don't pose any threat to her or the community at large.
    despite my blue eyes and clearly pale skin and italian surname, i have one guy who comes into my work, looks at my "arabic" sounding name and facial hair (which he also has) and calls me a terrorist. do you think i'm gonna quit my job because of this small minded hate mongering prick.

    also, how the fuck am i supposed to change the fact that i'm over 6' tall, or my weight? if i was any skinnier i would look annorexic, people don't beleive i'm the weight i am now, and without a beard i look like my dad who really is a prick. it's hard enough retaining the distinction that he and i are two separate entities, let alone intentionally looking like him...

    Comment by SyntaxComplex
    18:47 29/05/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Now I don't know which part of Australia you're from, but what you said about a female teacher being required in the presence of a male teacher is completely false. There are hundreds of educational institutions in Sydney, and none of them abide by those claims of yours.

    Comment by Anonymous
    17:20 27/01/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    this really is retarded, it's true that perception that governs your view of the world but faith is 10 times worse, Hell if you look like a "A.K.A bundle of sticks" then some brain dead drunk homophobe will try to swing their weight towards you, if your seriously brain dead that thinking everything is suspicious then you mate are living in fear.

    what they should do is stop this bullshit stabbings, theft, and assaults i hear in the news paper.

    coming back to faith, if you believe in a god so much that you don't process information mate your brain activity is that of a brain damaged person.

    if you believe "insert any damn thing" is a sin then you'll lash out towards the 'perpetrator' if not verbally then physically.

    sorry, i spoke in a tangent.

    Comment by Lolispotting
    19:38 11/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    What the heck? That is the broadest and flimsiest interpretation I've seen/heard regarding loli law material to date. How does the judge get off conceding the fact that the law was intended for photographs and then go on to just through all art under the bus. Wow. So, by this judge's interpretation, if someone doodles a diminutive stick figure in class with small to no breasts suddenly they're liable for a maximum 10 year sentence (or a fine and probation as was the case here) because this judge does not differentiate that which "markedly" deviates from normal human forms. I know that sounds a bit hyperbolic but a good lawyer could make that case apparently if this judge was sitting. *Sigh*

    Comment by Lolispotting
    19:41 11/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    Btw, almost forgot to mention...

    That's the creepiest Simpsons artwork I've ever seen Artefact O_O. Especially ol' Sherri and Terri. Looks like the Shining (or Shinning ^_^), ha.

    Avatar of fatimmortal
    Comment by fatimmortal
    16:41 18/05/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Truth be told, I think it's actually a perfect leap from the original.

    I mean, it's Simpsons with an Anime style. What more can us otaku ask for?

    Comment by Anonymous
    12:36 11/11/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    The manganese Simpsons does work, but what the fuck is up with the Goku-ized Lisa? I'm not sure what to make of her.

    Comment by Bobdanob
    19:50 11/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    I hate this country so much.
    I swear im gonna move to japan.

    another example of our wonderful "Child protection" laws here:

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/net-video-crime-epidemic/2008/12/11/1228584982919.html

    Comment by Anonymous
    20:02 11/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    It's just ridiculous.

    Here's a news video clip about the above article. Sigh, that 'child protection' agency could be doing other 'important' things than chasing up on this crap.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=769_1228810670

    Comment by Bobdanob
    20:20 11/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    im not sure i could click that link without the federal police storming my house.

    Comment by Anonymous
    20:54 11/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    Don't worry, the news company don't actually show the 'baby being abused'.

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:03 21/05/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    I'm disgusted by this link. Fucking stupid oversensitive Western society.

    Comment by rockbottom
    19:55 11/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    I'm not into the lolicon scene, but that's just retarded to be convicted of essentially child porn just because you had some Simpsons parody crap.

    Like this guy here:
    http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2008/10/24/american-faces-20-years-over-loli-manga/
    When it was just a handful of his manga that was "bad". I mean, I got some Ranma 1/2 manga that sometimes feature topless 16-year-olds. I'd hate to have to trash them because of stupid shit like this.

    Comment by Shodai
    20:22 11/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    What ended up happening with that guy? I hope he won his court case.

    Comment by math4origami
    12:50 12/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    The case will start in February 2009.
    http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-10-10/iowa-collector-charged-for-allegedly-obscene-manga

    Comment by chatterbug
    06:39 12/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    Speaking of Ranma 1/2. My High School library had that available for check out. Guess that means my old high school is going to be sued also. >_<

    Comment by Fonzer
    20:51 11/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    Oh since when are 2d images real people.We can't like touch them or anything or see them alive walking around the streat?

    Comment by Robert patrick
    21:04 11/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    Hey, the Simpsons are not even human depiction : they only have 4 fingers on each hand !

    Avatar of Artefact
    Comment by Artefact

    The defence seems to have made this argument, but the judge rejected it...

    Avatar of Kyorisu
    Comment by Kyorisu
    21:26 11/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    "The Australian Supreme Court’s ruling against freedom of expression in the case was a landmark one, which sets a precedent banning all 2D depictions of sex which may be construed as featuring underage participants."

    Err no. Any representation of a child in a sexual manner has been illegal for quite some time. Fact check plox.

    Avatar of Artefact
    Comment by Artefact

    Previously there had been no convictions for this sort of offence. The law is being applied in a new way which has significant implications. The judge said as much.

    Comment by kenjiharima
    21:37 11/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    The judge just wants money... >_>

    Comment by anon
    22:37 11/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    What the Hell?...
    Each day I seem to lose more and more faith in the legal system.

    Avatar of DrZaius
    Comment by Tony D
    22:56 11/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    It wasn't the Australian Supreme Court, only the SC of the state of New South Wales. So the rest of us are safe from stupidity, for now...

    Avatar of Artefact
    Comment by Artefact

    Source says only "A Supreme Court judge" - a case of "a" vs "the" I see. I presume you are correct so I will update the wording... Still, aren't these rulings able to be cited as precedent in other courts?

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:53 27/01/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    yes, unless the other side appeals that the decision the tribunal made could be laughed out of court.then the precedence holds zero grams

    Avatar of Ukonkivi
    Comment by Onni
    23:38 11/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    Simpsons? What awful taste in hentai.
    Also, this makes Australia look bad.
    Be cooler than that Aussies.

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:57 11/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    Shit thats scary, having to register as a sex offender because of that lol and that was the fricken simpsons.

    Comment by Anonymous
    00:14 12/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    I guess if cartoon characters are now "People" then Australia will have to put Homer (and others in the series) on trial for the many crimes they've committed.

    Either that or the creators. Matt Goring had better stay out of Australia, I guess.

    I used to like Australia, but this is a joke. I assume it can still be appealed, since it was just one Supreme Court justices' decision not a full court decision?

    Comment by Anonymous
    05:41 12/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    Speaking of the creators, the Simpsons movie showed Bart's naked willie. So Matt Groening can now be charged as a child pornographer.

    Comment by TerrawindX2
    18:57 01/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    That should be a defence too.

    But unfortunately there's the issue with "nudity" and "pornography" being different.

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:51 27/01/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    it's not constitutional, plus the case for this will bring in the bigshot movie dept ACMA and any other low life, hell Telstra, optus would be in on it

    look at it this way 'fuel child porn' how many companies would trial with you? even the tv stations would fight by side with you. your case is very strong because video hits have sexy scenes.

    too much for a pea-brained government to handle

    Australia, Yare Yare

    Comment by Jim
    00:28 12/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    Keep stockpiling stuff because a industrialized nation wide loli ban is coming.

    Comment by pus2meong
    00:34 12/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    When they gonna stop being stupid....? I mean, your computer is your personal belonging. How come they can sue you when you are in your legal private area? 2D considered as real human?! Simpson..?! Geeez...

    Comment by Anonymous
    01:06 12/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    Lol, Ausfailia.

    Comment by Anonymous
    01:22 12/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    Wow nice Simpsons fanart. I love Lisa and her delicious flat chest. Having said that, am I about the get raided?

    Avatar of Exia
    Comment by exia
    02:46 12/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    damn austrailia doesnt know how to take take in creativity of art.

    Avatar of asianprostitute1500
    Comment by asianprostitute1500
    03:32 12/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    Lisa looks like she went Super Saiyan in the pic

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:38 12/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    Er.. yeah, anyone know how he was "caught"?

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:26 12/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    Wow, sexual hysteria is reaching new heights around the globe...
    Hopefully this backlash against freedom of speech will peak soon and policies will head in the other direction. I doubt it will be within the next 20 years though. It's possible that the incoming generations will only know a world with hysterical art restrictions and they may think nothing of it because they did experience its lose.

    Avatar of Kuromimi
    Comment by Kuro
    06:15 12/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    So the law says that it's illegal to have child pron, he admits this *isn't* child porn, but "interprets" the law is meant to prevent "fueling" child porn.

    Shooting people is illegal.
    Ban movies with guns. It fuels crime. If you have a movie with people shooting guns, you should be arrested for murder.

    Comment by Fonzer
    07:12 12/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    Very good point there Kuro.
    The same should go for people who legaly own weapons.They should be arrested for murder :P

    Avatar of theandysan
    Comment by TheAndySan
    08:23 12/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    Completely ignoring the article, I really love that picture! It's like "whoa".

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:15 12/12/2008 # ! Neutral (0)

    While I hope this gets overturned on grounds that drawings AREN'T REAL PEOPLE... I also think the defense attorney could make a case that all the Simpsons characters are over 20 years old.

    After all, they were created a long time ago.

    Comment by Robocop
    18:43 14/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    http://www.mandalivia.com/talk/archives/2002_12.php

    scroll down to the bit about rene magritte. i think the old dude really sums it up with his pipe. or rather his painting of a pipe, as the painting is not the real thing.

    read more of him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Magritte [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Magritte]





    Post Comment »

Popular

Recent News

Recent Galleries

Recent Comments