Simpsons and filters signal new era of Internet McCarthyism

Stan Beer
Wednesday, 10 December 2008 15:14

Opinion and Analysis

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?