A ruling in an Australian court sets a new and exciting (albeit much less sexy) precedent: Those photos of Bart and Lisa having incest are no longer just creepy, they’re illegal.

CARTOON characters are people too, a judge has ruled in the case of a man convicted over cartoons based on The Simpsons, in which children are shown having sex.
In the New South Wales Supreme Court today, Justice Michael Adams ruled that a fictional cartoon character was a “person” within the meaning of the relevant state and commonwealth laws.
Alan John McEwan was appealing his February conviction for possessing child pornography and using his computer to access child pornography.
“The alleged pornography comprised a series of cartoons depicting figures modelled on members of the television animated series The Simpsons,” the judge said.
“In my view, the magistrate was correct in determining that, in respect of both the commonwealth and the NSW offences, the word ‘person’ included fictional or imaginary characters …,” the judge said.
This is kind of a slippery slope. Wait, did I say slippery? I meant “completely f’ing retarded” slope. So if something similar were enacted in America, and I kill a character in Grand Theft Auto, am I now committing murder? Or if I imagine myself having sex with Sailor Moon while I f my pillow, am I committing both rape and statutory rape? And if I ejaculate onto a Wall-E stand-up, is that destruction of property and sexual assault? Man, these are all things I did in the past 24 hours! I’m so fed!
For fun, Google the term “sexy Kim Possible” (it’s what I searched to get the image above…aside: why are her boobs so pointy? Is that a weapon in her spy games?) and prepare yourself for hordes and hordes of photos that are now wholly illegal in Australia.
[source]











December 8, 2008
#1
Ugh, that’s insane. Didn’t know Aussies were so uptight…
http://www.studyandscore.com/exam for a hilarious sex quiz (an Australian court would probably have a problem with this too)
December 10, 2008
#2
Actually, I can see why. That sort of stuff is just gross.
I don’t understand the court referring to animated characters as persons, but I understand their ruling. After all, I’d be pretty sickened if my five year old went to go look up “Dora the Explorer” or something like that, and end up with a picture of her and Boots going at it.
December 11, 2008
#3
To Jerb,
Usually we aren’t.
But I can see where this judge was coming from (although how cartoons can have knowledge of the “relevent” commonwealth laws I have no idea).
Cartoon porn is wierd, to say the least. But then again people are wierd, this guy and his judge (with the wacked out thoughts) prove it.
I doubt you guys in america would have heard about this but we’ve recently had the police cracking down on child pornography rings in New South Wales and across the country.
Also another thing to remember is that alot of cartoons these days the characters in them are in fact kids ranging from the age of 1 to about 18 or so. But by no way are any cartoon characters in current cartoons (with the exception of [Adult Swim]) over age.
I just want to let you know that most Aussies are really laid back, however we do have some retarded laws (like no R18+ game rating.)
Oh and by the way, I did search for “sexy kim possible” and i got just as many hit for cartoon porn as you’l expect. So we can sentance people for it, but we’ve done jack to actually stop it from happening.
December 11, 2008
#4
Kyo, why the hell are you letting your 5 year old online unsupervised?!?! That sounds wholly like a parental problem.
August 22, 2009
#5
Wouldn’t Bart be like 29 now? If a character from 90210 were to dress like they did in the series and so a nude shot, would that be child pornography?
Now I’m beginning to wonder about that porn where the woman dresses like little orphan annie.
February 9, 2010
#6
As a mom, I do back this up. Last week, the mother of one of my kid’s classmate reported that she saw his son masturbating to a cartoon, which is not even Hentai.