Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

pictures of cartoon characters having sex is deemed as pornographic

23 replies

ElfOnTheTopShelf · 08/12/2008 19:33

apologies its the sun!

When did this change? I think I have seen said pictures - DH gets sent loads of shite like this (and pics of The Little Mermaid with Prince Eric etc) from his friends who obviously are pathetic morons have different humour to us... is it a commonly known fact that these images are a chargeable offense?

OP posts:
Mamazontopofsanta · 08/12/2008 19:37

i have a picture of bart having sex with a simpson's style girl on my phone i think.
it was bluetoothed to me in a bar by mistake.

the fact that this judge has now set a rpecident that tehse can be classified as children could end up with me being charged as a paedaophile

ChiefElf · 08/12/2008 19:39

Snort.

Well that's the London Olympic Committee well and truly screwed then. Or at the very least the one who approved the logo.

ElfOnTheTopShelf · 08/12/2008 19:42

it does seem a little on the extreme side imo, but it is a bit worrying! most people would just see this as a cartoon and therefore "funny" rather than seeing them as children and therefore being a thrill from it.

OP posts:
Wallace · 08/12/2008 19:43

ChiefElf

dingdongmerrilyonpie · 08/12/2008 21:45

oh some of those cartoons are vile. I saw one once of Marge Simpson performing fellatio on Bart and even though it's a cartoon it's horrible.

Also I don't know if anyone has heard of or seen hentai which are also cartoons but they seem always to feature very very real looking little girls with grown men. They are vile and look very lifelike.

They should be banned

ElfOnTheTopShelf · 08/12/2008 22:00

I havent seen those types.
I agree, some are just wrong (Marge and Bart for eg) but would you class marge & homer as pornographic?

OP posts:
harpsichordcarrier · 08/12/2008 22:04

the world has gone flipping mad.
of course they aren't people, that is just ridiculous.
exactly who is being abused? who is being harmed?

dingdongmerrilyonpie · 08/12/2008 22:14

harpsichordcarrier, go take a look at "hentai" then come back and tell me I'm mad and ridiculous and that no-one is being harmed

poshwellies · 08/12/2008 22:16

Manga stuff can be hardcore,found out looking on Amazon for dd who's 13 who loves Ghibli manga-I realised there was some hardcore manga stuff about but didn't realise it would be quite as freely avaliable,as on a huge public site like Amazon.

I was quite shocked.

harpsichordcarrier · 08/12/2008 22:17

I know what hentai is, and I have worked professionally in this area and my view remains the same.
there has to be a balance, imo, between protection of children and attempting to police the unpoliceable.
you can't control what people draw or what people think. even to attempt to do so is horribly repressive.

dingdongmerrilyonpie · 08/12/2008 22:30

I dunno, I think it is pornographic. I mean, we wouldn't show our dc pictures of bart and lisa having sex would we? Or would we? Maybe it's me being old-fashioned.

Mamazontopofsanta · 08/12/2008 22:33

hentai is bloody awful actually.

onager · 08/12/2008 22:38

Something can be pornographic without being abuse. I think the people making the laws got a bit muddled there and forgot why they were making them.

Anyone remember those funny/naughty postcards seaside places used to sell? The simpsons stuff is intended to be like that.

I am absolutely sure the simpsons family come to no permanent harm from this.

NotQuiteCockney · 08/12/2008 22:39

I'd agree that this stuff is adult material, and should be available in the same ways that other adult material is.

But treating comedy porn with the Simpsons in it like actual child porn is ridiculous.

dingdongmerrilyonpie · 08/12/2008 22:40

it's not the simpsons family I'm worried about.

edam · 08/12/2008 22:47

Glad to see it's Australia, not the UK. We've got enough daft repressive laws of our own, don't need anyone inventing more.

edam · 08/12/2008 22:48

If anyone were to take action, it should be whoever owns the rights to The Simpsons - Matt Groening?

onager · 08/12/2008 22:51

Actually cartoons are illegal here too. There's been no big test case that I've seen, but there is a law to say that any representation is illegal as long as it loooks like it was intended to be something that would be illegal (no idea how the law is phrased, but you get the idea)

Anniek · 09/12/2008 12:29

If cartoons performing an illegal act is illegal, why aren't computer games or films which show illegal activity, more thinking robbery than anything involving children.

Just a thought?

edam · 09/12/2008 18:16

VERY good point, Anniek.

ElfOnTheTopShelf · 09/12/2008 18:29

Never thought of that actually!
So if you can be prosecuted for having images of pictures because they are viewing it as being child pornography, then if you go online and play games such as soldier of fortune and kill somebody, is that assult?!

It does sound overly PC to me, I can understand that some are in bad taste (such as simpson parents with simpson children etc) but I cannot see who is getting hurt by these. If they are being viewed by adults and not children, I dont see where anybody is hurt.

(And really, do people "get off" to cartoons?)

OP posts:
FuckMyHusband · 08/08/2020 00:17

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

cdtaylornats · 09/08/2020 00:00

The Coroners and Justice Act of April 2009 (c. 2) created a new offence in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland of possession of a prohibited image of a child. This act makes cartoon pornography depicting minors illegal in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Since Scotland has its own legal system, the Coroners and Justice Act does not apply. This act did not replace the 1978 act, extended in 1994, since that covered "pseudo-photographs"—images that appear to be photographs. In 2008 it was further extended to cover tracings and other works derived from photographs or pseudo-photographs. A prohibited cartoon image is one which involves a minor in situations which are pornographic and "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character".

Prior to this, although not explicitly in the statutes, the law was interpreted to apply to cartoon images, though only where the images are realistic and indistinguishable from photographs. The new law, however, covered images whether or not they are realistic.

History
In 2006 the government was giving close consideration to the issues and options regarding cartoon pornography, according to Vernon Coaker.[clarification needed] On December 13, 2006 UK Home Secretary John Reid announced that the Cabinet was discussing how to ban computer-generated images of child abuse—including cartoons and graphic illustrations of abuse—after pressure from children's charities. The government published a consultation on April 1, 2007, announcing plans to create a new offence of possessing a computer-generated picture, cartoon or drawing with a penalty of three years in prison and an unlimited fine.

The children's charity NCH stated that "this is a welcome announcement which makes a clear statement that drawings or computer-generated images of child abuse are as unacceptable as a photograph". Others stated that the intended law would limit artistic expression, patrol peoples' imaginations, and that it is safer for pedophiles' fantasies "to be enacted in their computers or imaginations [rather] than in reality".

The current law was foreshadowed in May 2008, when the Government announced plans to criminalise all non-realistic sexual images depicting under-18s. These plans became part of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, sections 62–68, and came into force on April 6, 2010. The definition of a "child" in the Act included depictions of 16- and 17-year-olds who are over the age of consent in the UK, as well as any adults where the "predominant impression conveyed" is of a person under the age of 18. The Act made it illegal to own any picture depicting under-18s participating in sexual activities, or depictions of sexual activity in the presence of someone under 18 years old. The law was condemned by a coalition of graphic artists, publishers, and MPs, who feared it would criminalise graphic novels such as Lost Girls and Watchmen.

The government claimed that publication or supply of such material could be illegal under the Obscene Publications Act, if a jury would consider it to have a tendency to "deprave and corrupt". However, the published bill made no reference to the "deprave and corrupt" test.

In October 2014, Robul Hoque was convicted of possessing up to 400 explicit manga images involving fictional children, in the UK's first prosecution of its kind. He received a 9-month suspended sentence. He was also warned in court that had he been in possession of actual child pornography, he would have been sentenced to jail for a longer term in years.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page