Stan Beer
Wednesday, 10 December 2008 14:14
Opinion and Analysis
Page 3 of 3
Not to put too fine a point on
this, calling lewd Simpsons cartoons child pornography is getting into
extremely dangerous territory. Child pornography, by any sensible
definition of the term, involves the exploitation of real children.
Kids have feelings and get hurt. Cartoon characters, no matter how
depraved the imagination of the artist who draws them, are scribbles of
a pen.
According to a judge involved with
the case, however, the cartoons could fuel demand for pornographic
material containing real children. What's more, if the fellow had
possessed pictures of real children he would have been locked up
instead of getting a $3000 fine and two years probation.
Yes
both points may be true. However, the fact is the man was not found
with any pics of real children. All he had were cartoons - drawings.
Call
them obscene; call them disgusting; call them the product of a sick
mind, one that was ripping off the Simpsons empire with cartoons drawn
by a third party that certainly were not authorised by Matt Groening or
20th Century Fox. They were drawings of cartoon characters.
Can crude cartoons of the Simpsons children depicted as described be
called child pornography? As I read elsewhere, can a big stick figure
depicted as engaging in a sexual act with a small stick figure be
described as pedophilia? Can a cartoon depicting Elmer Fudd engaged in
a sex act with Bugs Bunny be described as bestiality?
A judge thinks yes. But no matter how sick and depraved the depictions,
there are no real people involved. So is this really child pornography?
The pity of all this is that we now have a situation where double standards are in force.
Some
years ago, I stopped my kids from watching South Park when I realised
it contained offensive material. I was able to successfully implement
my own ban - I didn't need help from the Government. Internet filter
advocates take note!
South Park in its particularly crude
fashion has made light of subjects such as incest, child molestation,
child death and drug use. Yet the Government has never banned it - why?
Could it be because it's a cartoon?