An Australian court recently decided that a man who had a cartoon of Bart and Lisa Simpson on his computer getting it on was guilty of possessing child pornography. When the man appealed the case on the ground that they are CARTOON CHARACTERS, NOT CHILDREN, the judge, Michael Adams said that simply because the Simpsons characters were “not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.”
Wrong, dingleberry. They cannot be considered people because they WERE NEVER BORN, DO NOT LIVE, AND WILL NEVER DIE! They cannot be considered people because THEY DO NOT KNOW JOY AND CANNOT SUFFER PAIN! They cannot be considered people because THEY ARE NOT PEOPLE!
I’m getting worked up about this because our supreme court, in the dark ages of the last eight years, has been considering similar legislation. If I may, let me point out some problems with this that strike me as being rather obvious…
1) By focusing law enforcement efforts on fiction… make-believe… pretend… you are taking resources away from protecting REAL children. You know… the important ones. Who gives a rat’s ass if Homer Simpson is giving the high hard one to Lisa in some cartoonist’s imagination? I’m more concerned about the little girl who’s being raped by her daddy on video so that he can send it to his sick-ass friends. I think that part of the reason that this is being considered is that, as much as I love technology, digital photo technology and the internet has made it very difficult to catch the purveyors of kiddie porn. They no longer have to take their film to the photomat to be developed and then send it to their peers through the US mail. Technology has made all of our lives easier. Sadly, that includes the purveyors of kiddie porn. So, since they can’t catch and punish the guilty, they’re going to go after the artists.
2) How large of a step is it from prosecuting cartoons as kiddie porn to prosecuting libraries for carrying Lolita and Bastard Out of Carolina? (If you haven’t read these excellent novels, SHAME ON YOU and go read them.)
3) You cannot prosecute crimes against fictional human beings. How much of our fiction, both graphic and textual, including movies, deals with murder? Maybe the makers of the “Saw” films should be tried – but for making a bad film, not for virtual murder.
4) America seems to be growing less and less logical. I’m thinking of marketing a bumper sticker that says “Honk If You’re A Dumbass”. I haven’t because I’m afraid of being deafened by the blare of horns. We are not just arrogant and ignorant, we are DAMNED PROUD OF IT! One of the places that this shows most clearly is in our disdain for the simple little question “Why?” I think that all laws that are on the books should be subjected to the question “Why?” Why is this a law? If no reasonable answer can be given, then the law should be stricken from the books. Why is child pornography illegal? Because a child… a REAL child… had to be victimized to make it. QE fucking D.
5) Justice Adams gave the same old tired argument that I’ve heard until I’m sick of it, so please allow me to disabuse it. He said that the animated cartoon could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children," and therefore upheld the conviction for child pornography. This is the most ignorant argument that I’ve ever heard. Do you know what fuels demand for material that involves the abuse of children? PEDOPHILIA! If a person is already bent toward being sexually attracted to children, then yes, this cartoon would incite them. So do children beauty pageants, the Sears catalog, any television show or movie involving children and the very existence of children. Should we then outlaw all of these things? Not only that, but, again, the same argument could be made against any piece of fiction involving murder. How many budding sociopaths and psychopaths were brought to full bloom by being able to watch the murders through the killer’s eyes in Friday the 13th? It’s as much of an unanswerable question as “How many budding sociopaths and psychopaths are KEPT from living out their fantasies of killing by being able to release that urge through watching the fictional murders of fictional characters through the eyes of a fictional killer in Friday the 13th?” I am not alone in thinking that these kind of films… as well as sexual fiction about children… provides a necessary release valve for these anti-social tendencies. If this Australian dude can get his sexual ya-ya’s off looking at naughty pics of Bart and Lisa Simpson while leaving real children THE HELL ALONE, I say more power to him.
Peace.
Randal
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think that folks are afraid of certain things, and the fear makes it seem rational that they make a law about it ... what did Franklin say about 'freedom and security' ..?
When the case is made for the reality of the illogical, you get rulings like this and bumper stickers that are proud of how poorly you fare with intellectual pursuits, never mind that it is also and indication of how badly you fair with basic things ... could go on, and on, couldn't you?
Post a Comment