An appeal judge in Australia has ruled that an animation depicting well-known cartoon characters engaging in sexual acts is child pornography.

The internet cartoon featured characters from the Simpsons TV series. The central issue in the case was whether a cartoon character could depict a real person.

Judge Michael Adams decided that it could, and found a man from Sydney guilty of possessing child pornography on his computer

Justice Michael Adams said the purpose of anti-child pornography legislation was to stop sexual exploitation and child abuse where images of “real” children were depicted…

He ruled that the animated cartoon could “fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children,” and therefore upheld the conviction for child pornography.


  1. Mr. Fusion says:

    #29, bobu,

    I think your argument about ‘what is child rape in one location is marrying material in another’ is straw man, irrelevant to the argument at hand.

    It becomes a straw man argument only to those who refuse to contemplate the entire crux. If you only want others to consider YOUR points then you are the idiot. This was never about “child abuse”. It was about possession of pornographic material.

    This is not about 17-year-old people, but about an image representing an undisputed child in a sexual manner.

    It is about a cartoon character. The Simpsons have been broadcast since the late 1980s. If Bart was ten then he would be 30 today. Yes, he is a child, but so am I even though I have children of my own. Even my 88 yr old father is a child, does that mean he can’t star in any porn?

    The judge has discretion to decide what is pornographic, and that decision has to take into account the context.

    You are only a wee little bit correct on that. A Judge does not have discretion. He must follow the Constitutional and statute law and prior case law. He may consider the context upon sentencing. Context has nothing to do with whether something is a crime.

    The same picture can be pron in one context and entirely innocent in the other.

    What you suggest then, which is what Judges look at, is INTENT. If the use of the picture is merely prurient interests then yes, it may be classified as pornographic. Don’t forget though, as much as one man’s treasure is another’s garbage, the same applies to one man’s ART is another’s porn. I am not about to have every catalog banned because some pervert in Queensland jerked off while looking at one.

    Basically, we are looking at two different questions here. I’m looking at a very broad question of what society considers good for itself, while you are looking at a very narrow question of the words in this judgement.

    Nope. You want us to agree with your narrow logic path so we will ultimately end up agreeing with you. You didn’t allow any room for deviation by phrasing your questions to suggest anyone who disagreed is a pervert. The passages I quoted are snippets from the on-line report I found. If I had the entire transcript I would most likely have quoted far more in depth.

    I think I’m right to say ‘good job’ to the judge. In his judgement the defendant was a paedophile (or supporting paedophilia) and this is not something that we want to allow, therefore he is punished.

    Maybe you can show us where the Judge said the man was a pedophile? Could you do that please? Because that was not the question before the Judge so it is not something he is allowed to rule on. So that is why YOU are WRONG to say that.

    I’ll repeat it a little differently. The issue was whether or not a fictional cartoon character is a “person” as explained in Australian and New South Wales law. This Judge said yes. That is completely contrary to a rational person’s thought.

    McEwan arguing that fictional cartoon characters could not be considered people as they “plainly and deliberately” departed from the human form.

    The Judge said the cartoon characters had “human genitalia”. How can a recognized cartoon have “human genitalia”? Well, the Judge needed to come to that conclusion in order to explain why the cartoons were pornographic. He didn’t say they “resembled” human genitalia, but WERE human. Because of this finding, he next went on to suggest that his ruling was:
    calculated to deter production of other material, including cartoons, which “can fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children”.

    Here is something for you to ponder. In the Simpson’s Movie, apparently Bart drew a penis. Should the producers and distributors have been charged in Australia for child pornography?

  2. Mr. Fusion says:


    I posted a link in #24 and another in #29. Both are Australian news outlets. If I post two or more links in one post I get hit with the spam filter.

    Apparently the Australian feedback is very pro-judgement.

  3. Pissed says:

    I think these self righteous people need to reconcile a few things. First off, wasn’t there a recent movie staring Dakota Fanning that had a rape scene? Wasn’t there a movie where a prepubescent Brooke Shields was nude? By your logic, everyone who ever viewed those films is a pedophile who should be in jail.

    Second, teenagers have sex. *Gasp* It’s true. So if two teens make a film of themselves having sex and post it to the web should they be sent to jail forever as child rape artists?

    Third, playing violent video games or watching violent movies does not make one commit violent acts. Hence, watching any type of porn does not make one predisposed to act out what was depicted on screen.

    Lastly, puh-leaze, get off it… go after real rape artists and stop these ridiculous victimless obscenity cases whose only grounds are the sexual fears of religious zealots.

  4. emma bailey says:

    i dont think thats right if kids like it and find it funny then thats fine so my kids like it

  5. janelantaconies says:

    hey who want o have an sex me plzzzzz sex me i want it lol 🙂

  6. todd uren says:

    i think this is pretty offensive to show on the computer and show be taken down


Bad Behavior has blocked 19681 access attempts in the last 7 days.