An Ipswitch man has admitted downloading graphic cartoon porn images featuring child characters from The Simpsons and The Powerpuff Girls TV shows.

The 28-year-old is now a registered sex offender and will have to report to police after pleading guilty in Ipswich District Court to having the bizarre images on his computer.
Milner told police he would co-operate but did not want to give them his computer.

But an hour-and-a-half later he phoned police and said they could now have his computer.

Officers discovered the computer would no longer turn on but a year later police forensic experts recovered 64 images of cartoon child exploitation material in the machine’s recycle bin.

The images depicted figures from The Simpsons, The Powerpuff Girls and The Incredibles in sexually explicit positions.

Good grief. Now you can be charged with ‘child exploitation material’ where no child was exploited. I’m all for punishing those who exploit children, especially producers of child pornography, and this creepy guy seems to be in the red zone, but this sets a dangerous precedent IMHO. Thoughts?

  1. Improbus says:

    If you are a pervert it would behoove you to learn basic computer forensics and use encryption. Duh. This guy’s crime was ignorance.

  2. Benjamin says:

    If you are a pervert it would behoove you to learn to not look at this kind of material on the Internet or on his computer at all. Duh. This guy’s crime was ignorance.

    Bart Simpson is 23, so he is of age anyway.

  3. Greensaab says:

    Thought crime next?

  4. Jmac says:

    Creepy yes, harmful no. The point of child pornography laws is to prevent children from being hurt and/or abused. This guy was not hurting anyone.

  5. Breetai says:

    With that line of thought satire is clearly illegal. I guess that means this place and everyone here is clearly guilty of thought crimes.

  6. Angel H. Wong says:

    IMNHO that’s just plain stupid, fan art of that kind has been around since the internet began. After all, there’s something called rule 34.

    Case in point? This pic has been floating since 1998. Which btw is very NSFW.

  7. The Watcher says:

    Nanny State….

    Unless you’re a Muslim, in which case the punishment isn’t severe enough….


    So, what harm did that guy cause, other than inconveniencing a few electrons?

  8. Rick Cain says:

    I hope dragons having sex with cars isn’t illegal.

  9. RBG says:

    “Crown Prosecutor Suzanne Cantatore said the sentence needed to be harsh as it was Milner’s second conviction for having child exploitation material.

    The Leichhardt resident was convicted of possessing child exploitation material in 2003 after 59 sexual images of actual youngsters were found on his computer.”

    I take it for some folks here they would be completely ok with photo-quality sketches and animation of child sex? I doubt the same for your neighbors.


  10. Animby says:

    I’m not sure how old Lisa was when the series started 21 years ago but she must be above the age of consent by now!

    Why does it take a year to check a hard drive? Don’t they have a geek squad? Pro’lly had to send it to Scotland Yard and they’re still busy looking for that guy in Whitechapel.

  11. WaynePhilips says:

    What about my sticky note porn? I can’t verify the age of my stick figures.

  12. Dirk Thundernuts says:

    Marge Simpson is really hot:

  13. amodedoma says:

    There’s a whole collection of Japanese comics that I recommend you stay away from, just about anything labeled Hentai or Ecchi. In fact I think I’ll have to change my laptop wallpaper before I travel again. I mean it’s not anything outwardly sexual but where’s the limit? I didn’t know a naked cross between a young woman and a woodland creature drawn by a japanese artist was criminal, but who knows – furry breasts are clearly visible. What’s the limit to fantasy? Near as I can tell if we all were judged by the content of our fantasies we’d all be in jail.

  14. Dirk Thundernuts says:

    #14 – Thanks for checking them out for us!

    /rolls eyes

  15. Cap'nKangaroo says:

    Did Patrick Norton not already explain the preferred method of erasing images on a computer? Sledgehammer to the hard drive does it every time!

  16. Greg Allen says:

    I tried to Google it but I lost my patience.

    Anyone remember this?

    During the Clinton-era a child pornography law was passed but it was over-ruled by the Supreme Court because it over-reached by banning simulated child exploitation.

    I think the S.C. ruling even mentioned the film “American Beauty” because the actress played an minor child.

    Anyone else here have better memory than me?

  17. f_w says:

    Moral panic.

    People like to be able to say they are better then some one else, or able to point to some one and say they are bad.

    But in this case i wish people would get a life.
    There are SO much in the real world that’s need to be dealt with.
    (Like actual child molesters)
    But this is just a waste of time for people whit too much time on their hand, and too little brain in their heads.
    For god sakes, do something useful if you got the time and inclination.
    Don’t try to pat yourselves on your back trying to say you do something worth while with this.
    It is just pathetic if you do.

  18. f_w says:

    At #10
    I would have more understanding of the conviction if it where.
    But it was not so your reasoning fails.
    And images such as you describes still hurts no one.
    If no one was hurt, or leads to be hurt, so no one should cry foul for it.

    Creepy or not, we do not want to know what you do with all those shoes at night, behind closed doors.
    But you should not go to jail or get on a list for sexing up shoes.

  19. Skeptic says:

    Stupid Flanders!

  20. KMFIX says:

    no child, no crime.

  21. just me says:

    Here’s something interesting. You can view and/or own pictures and even videos of someone being murdered (either in real life or fiction), or being raped (fictionally), and be considered a perfectly normal, sane, and safe human. But if you try to view and/or possess pictures of child pornography, then you are dangerous pedophile and you must be closely tracked by the State for the rest of your life, if not imprisoned. It’s interesting how this kind of thinking isn’t even questioned. It has become automatic.

  22. RBG says:

    21: I suppose you also think no criminal found, no crime; & no conviction, no crime, huh? I know of lawyers disbarred because they temporarily borrowed their client’s money thinking: No victim, no crime.

    Many crimes simply depend upon intellectual intent.

    19 f_w: “But you should not go to jail or get on a list for sexing up shoes.”

    No, just for sexing up children or behaving like you might. Most people see the difference and are concerned about such things.


  23. June says:

    This has happened and will happen again.


    Even with photographs I don’t see possession as a crime when another person already did the photography.

  24. KMFIX says:

    #23.. Was a child hurt or adversely effected by this?

  25. deowll says:

    #17 The courts struck it down because the law said that _any_ image of someone less than 18 or who appeared to be less than 18 could be used as justification to charge the person with child pornography cartoon and fantasy characters included. All they had to do was claim that you felt lust due to the image.

    I think the cartoon part is still standing but I’m not sure. I think they just refined it to limit it to more or less nude images or sexually suggestive images. Not sure about the true legal status of Madonna and child pictures.

  26. Animby says:

    # 23 RBG said, “Many crimes simply depend upon intellectual intent.”

    You must be Roman Catholic. You don’t have to commit the sin, you merely have to THINK about doing it. Too late. You’re damned.

  27. RBG says:

    27 Animby: And all court judges and juries must be RC too when they must rule on the intent of an accused.

    25 KNFIX: Children are hurt every day by pedophiles trying to get their fix. Look at #24 June already trying to justify child porn. Next he’ll be excusing it because it was made outside US jurisdiction.


  28. Uncle Patso says:

    The way it was explained to me once was that if you draw a dot on a piece of paper and say that it represents someone underage having sex, then you can be arrested and charged.

    The recycle bin, how stupidly embarrassing!

  29. KMFIX says:

    #28… Still didn’t answer the question as you know how absurd this situation is.

    Yes, children are hurt every day. People are killed every day. I just saw a cartoon lighthouse keeper get his head chopped off by a laser in a BBC report. Does that mean I’m going to go and kill lighthouse keepers?

    Should I now have to report to the police department every time I move to let them know where I’m now located because I saw a cartoon lighthouse keeper get his head cut off with a laser in a BBC report, so I’m most likely going to kill the local lighthouse keeper (if there is one)??

  30. mylandr says:

    The “would be” U.S. version of this abomination was called COPA, the Child On-line Protection Act (of 1995, as I recall). Under COPA, any depiction of “underage” sexual behavior, even those which were implied, in ANY form whatsoever was a criminal act. The Supreme Court objected to the language used to define the criminal act as being too broad (and all-encompassing), which would make U.S. theatrical releases such as “The Blue Lagoon”, “Atlantic City”, “Taxi Driver”, and various other more artistic films into obscenity after-the-fact. N.B., the Supremes did NOT object to the IDEAs that generated the law, just the language.


Bad Behavior has blocked 5246 access attempts in the last 7 days.