Comments on: Censorship of a peculiar kind

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:36:00 +0000

I can see both sides here... Glenda, you put your side very well, so I won't elaborate. As for the judge... the last thing he wants is a child pornography website which is legal by his definition because the images don't contain real children, however real or unreal in appearence the images are. It's somewhat ridiculous when you consider how common other images showing fantasies that involve breaking the law are... and think about all the computer games involving stealing and murdering people =/ but this is a very sensitive subject atm...

there is a little bit more to it than saying Bart, etc aren't children... they are representations of children. So should people legally be allowed to do whatever they wish with representations of children? I guess they should, since you're allowed to show images of a representation of a child with its head cut off or whatever, but I really can't see what images like these (without a greater story) add to the world. Anyway you could argue that saying the cartoon was ok encourages child pornography.

there is a bit of a difference between your book and the cartoon... your book isn't about (representations of) children "engaged in sexual acts" or whatever the quote was... the cartoon is. The cartoon isn't about consequences or moving on.

I don't envy the judge, especially as he can't just say "well, this image is ok, but anything more realistic is illegal" & I think he was going to get quite a bit of attention whatever he decided. Perhaps he erred on the side of caution, but I think most people do that where children are concerned.

hope I've added something to the discussion anyway :)

By: Jo

Jo — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 06:44:00 +0000

Maybe yer honour just wants to get well known

By: Glenda Larke

Glenda Larke — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 05:53:00 +0000

Well, I’d certainly dispute the idea that the young Simpson’s look anything like kids,(more like plastic bath toys??) and I suspect that even the voice overs for the TV version are adults!

So we have a drawing of weird looking figures, 20 years old…what’s the problem again, your honour?

By: Nick Falkner

Nick Falkner — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:55:00 +0000

My first thought, when I saw this in the media, was that the decision was wrong on several counts, not the least of which is that the Simpsons' characters only have the appearance of children.

The Simpsons are now broadcasting their 20th season, having first aired in 1989. All of the 'children' are now well in excess of the age required for sexual activity. They just seem to suffer from a medical condition that prevents them from appearing older. (Otherwise know as "it's only a cartoon, chum")

In short, this decision isn't just strange because the images derive from a very stylised representation of humans in cartoon form, it's not just strange because this is supposed to encourage other people in bad behaviours somehow based on their fascination with yellow animate characters but it's incredibly strange because the decision seems to stem from the fact that it is the appearance of being a child that is the important issue here.

In other words, it's child pornography if someone looks at it and thinks it's child pornography, even if all of the participants are overage. I don't follow these cases very often - maybe this is always the way it's interpreted?

By: Jo

Jo — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 07:20:00 +0000

You are right, I hadn’t thought about it being a study in prejudice. Mind you the Qisi (sp) aren’t doing anything to improve that with their murders and conspiracies. But I suppose one can’t blame them totally after 900 years.

By: glenda larke

glenda larke — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:56:00 +0000

Yes, I noticed that – I am about halfway through the last book now. And I still haven’t a clue who will make it, and who’s going to die…
I met him at Worldcon, btw.

Among other things, I think it is a great study in prejudice and hatreds and tolerance.

By: Jo

Jo — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 05:40:00 +0000

I think there a dozens of cases where authors could be accused of child pornography – I am reading Shadowbridge at the moment, what about all the little boys being fed on by afrits, doesn’t that constitute pornography too? Judges can be bloody ridiculous but so can the average Joe. You have a lot of it in Malaysia, but I guess there is lots of such stupidity everywhere.

If you read my blog (do you?) I have also read David B. Coe on your recommendation. Much enjoyment, thanks.