Simpsons Sex Scandal

An Australian man has been convicted of possessing compromising images on his computer - of Bart & Lisa Simpson.

Alan John McEwan has been convicted of having pornographic pictures of children on his computer. They can be named for legal reasons as Bartholemew Simpson, 10 and Lisa Simpson, 8.

The defendant was accused of accessing pornographic material, and on seizure of his computer, was found to have pictures of the Simpson family in various states of arousal.

Judge Adams rejected Mcewan's claims that the images were not of people. "The question before me is whether a fictional cartoon character is a 'person' within the meaning of the statutory offenses or, to be more precise, is a depiction or representation of such a 'person'," he said.

Whilst there was no evidence that this material was to be used for criminal purposes, Mcewan was fined 3,000 AUS$ and made to serve a two year 'good behavior' bond.

The punishment was upheld by the Supreme Court.

This is not the first time that the nude Simpsons have been in court, Royal Sun Alliance would probably like to forget the incident back in 2001, where 10 employees were fired, and 77 were suspended, for forwarding lewd cartoons. Possibly why they're now known as the RSA Group.

Source : The Register
Australian Court Judgement

Permalink

This strikes me as odd, it harms nobody and doesn't involve any sort of abuse. Basically nobody is wronged in this case and it seems they're just charging him because they feel like it. This strikes me as slightly wrong though I can't think of exactly why.

Its gonna get worse now that more focus is being drawn to it.

ewwwwwwww

Though this really is whole-body-shudder-inducing, I'm not certain this should be considered criminal activity. It'd be different if the guy was offering these pictures as inducement for criminal activity to others, but fining and putting someone on parole for a "Rule 34" infraction like this does make me a bit concerned about where society is going.

-- Steve

The idea of someone actually getting off to The Simpsons kind of makes me sick. Anyway the only thing he is guilty of is being a extremely sick individual.(NOT A CRIME, BTW)

Whoever gave you this job needs a medal.

It is certainly odd. I'm not sure whether it's a terrible offence or not. But then again it reads like he was admitting to their nature, just defending owning them.

Why would you wanna see a cartoon 8 year old get it on with her cartoon family?
Seeeeeems a bit sick if you ask me
Surely anything paedophilic is not positive for society?

"It was just a laugh" as a reason can exscuse an image of a child taking part in sexual behaviour?
Even if it is a cartoon the negative connotations are still there

EDIT: Have i gone on an (Opposite/Adjacent) about this?
I can't decide

Wait, that stuff's illegal. Shit... delete delete!

Seriously tho, I agree with Pedro in that it isn't exactly a crime against a person or persons. Who exactly is the guy harming by having these cartoons?

ok.
well then...
that's just peachy.

That just ain't right....

Yus ok it was a cartoon, but still, the whole 'scenario' of it sounds to be disturbingly wrong, regardless of which carton they were ripped from.

PedroSteckecilo:
While I'm no defender of this conceptually... this sets a bad precident, it harms nobody and doesn't involve any sort of abuse. Basically nobody is wronged in this case, they're just charging him because they feel like it. This strikes me as slightly wrong though I can't think of exactly why.

Probably because it's straying very far into "pre-emptive law enforcement" territory. The logic of that argument is, since this man was aroused by fake depictions of child porn, he would in fact be aroused by actual child porn, and so must be punished before he takes that "inevitable" step. In short, enjoying the depiction of an illegal act equates to enjoying the illegal act. It's a favorite of the hypermoral "holier than thou" set and is about three steps away from the institution of "thoughtcrime".

Cartoons aren't real...It's creepy but it shouldn't be illegal. This is getting out of hand...next thing you know we're going to be subject to arrest for watching a Coppertone sunscreen print ad (it's the one with the cartoon of a dog pulling down the kid's bathing suit bottoms from the 1950's or so).

PedroSteckecilo:
This strikes me as odd, it harms nobody and doesn't involve any sort of abuse. Basically nobody is wronged in this case and it seems they're just charging him because they feel like it. This strikes me as slightly wrong though I can't think of exactly why.

I completely agree with you there.
The characters are not real and if i was to go over the top they should praise him for not looking at real children haha.

Their making it a crime of concept, that in the mind of an individual like that, pornographic images of cartoon children concludes that he would also be interested in images of real children. Seems a little weird if you ask me. Prehaps all that time the Australians spend living 3/4 of a mile from the surface of the sun is getting to them.

What were they THINKING?!? Oh no, cartoon porn!!! Quick, slap him with a fine and parole.

Anyone think it's gross that they are also brother and sister? I think that's even more messed up!

cartoon porn doesn't hurt anybody..maybe he's got a fetiche(sp?) for the simpsons..alright alright so it's a bit disturbing but it's not a goddamn crime

it could be worse I mean, he could have real child pornography

To be perfectly honest, its good that people are being convicted for pedophelia but this is just americanised hentia and therfore is hurting nobody.

The Rogue Wolf:

PedroSteckecilo:
While I'm no defender of this conceptually... this sets a bad precident, it harms nobody and doesn't involve any sort of abuse. Basically nobody is wronged in this case, they're just charging him because they feel like it. This strikes me as slightly wrong though I can't think of exactly why.

Probably because it's straying very far into "pre-emptive law enforcement" territory. The logic of that argument is, since this man was aroused by fake depictions of child porn, he would in fact be aroused by actual child porn, and so must be punished before he takes that "inevitable" step. In short, enjoying the depiction of an illegal act equates to enjoying the illegal act. It's a favorite of the hypermoral "holier than thou" set and is about three steps away from the institution of "thoughtcrime".

Except being aroused isn't a crime, it's not something you can completely control and that has been psychologically proven. I worry about things like this, I am pretty damn sure there are Functioning Pedophiles in the world, ones that don't go out and rape/murder children they probably just wank off to loli porn. They are not committing crimes, they are keeping their kink (sick though it is) restrained.

I dunno, I'm just of the mind that if they aren't actually doing anything wrong (in this case indirect harm through consumption of child porn), they shouldn't be arrested for it.

I mean, we all know (or know of) that strange anime fan who enjoys witch touching games a little too much. He's not a menace to society, he just has some really unorthodox kinks.

Ive often seen pictures like that flooding on the internet, not exactly my thing though.

At the risk of tipping my hand sufficiently to be banned for my horrible potential depravity, this matter has often crossed my mind as well. I'm into Japanese Anime, and I'm afraid I may have become somewhat infected by the influence of the Lolita fixation influence of prominent in Japanese culture that often shows up in their sexy cartoons.

I have no intent to sidetrack children (or even teens) in real life - it's just not honorable. However, I have to wonder, should my computer be impounded, the cache plumbed by a bit-recovery agent, and racy young anime heroines in various states of undress and/or violation recovered, would I be held accountable? Is it genuinely pedophilia to have thoughts of arousal, which will not be acted upon, directed at arguably ageless drawings?

Granted, Bart and Lisa might be a different story. They're really quite obviously prepubescent, where your average anime heroine who the story claims may be 10-years-old is drawn with a body that would make a college coed jealous. But you have to wonder if John McEwan was getting aroused by lewd Simpson imagery or just thought they were funny.

psico666:
To be perfectly honest, its good that people are being convicted for pedophelia but this is just americanised hentia and therfore is hurting nobody.

From the psychological studies I've read on the nature of sexual deviancy I have to disagree with you. Yes its good that people are convicted, but this guy should not have been.

"Pedophiles" I am defining it as anyone who is aroused by children are just the extreme end of a youth fixation, and we are ALL attracted you youth. There is some thinking that you cannot actively control your sexual kinks and preferences, they're ingrained in your psychology.

Granted certain Pedophiles are dangerous and there are extremely valid arguements as to why pornography of that variety is illegal (the people in them are being exploited etc etc harm is done etc etc not debating that, it's wrong).

However in this specific case it's like saying "You are all murderers because you all have the potential to murder! Hence if you play violent videogames YOU ARE A MURDERER because you enact it over and over again."

No thats not what im saying, I'm saying that it's good that the goverment is cracking down on pedophiles but this is a bit far by arresting somebody who is looking at a cartoon of two characters who may be 8 and 10 but is actually harming nobody. At the end of the day its just a cartoon.

It could be argued that the characters bart and lisa has been around for more than 18 years.

But seriously, if this is child pornography then Tom and Jerry is animal abuse!

I think this whole case was set up, just so people could report it, and have a picture of Homer next to it say D'oh!

Simpsons has been around for almost 20 years now. So Lisa is 27 by now. Unless that picture was drawn 10 years ago, no crime has been committed.

Actually reading the full link was quite interesting. With respect to the Commonwealth and the New South Wales, their legal definition of "person" did include fictional characters even if they are not realistically portrayed. So this is how the Magistrate made his ruling.

The case was not about whether he was hurting anyone with his particular habit, but it's the discussion of the letter of the law.

But...but...*nobody* was harmed by it. Granted, it's a rather odd taste, but I thought the point of such laws was to prevent harm and exploitation of minors?

All of these articles coming out of Australia make me want to visit less and less.

Well there goes 99% of Hentai.

Thank God.

Though it probably shouldn't be illegal, since no one's being harmed, gross as it is.