Is This Really Child Porn
I just became a fucking child pornographer, thank god I don’t live in fucking Australia, where kangaroo fucking is legal but pictures like this are child porn.. This article, Simpsons cartoon rip-off is child porn, states:
A Supreme Court judge in Australia has ruled that an internet cartoon in which look-a-like child characters from The Simpsons engage in sexual acts is child pornography
I’d like to disagree on a couple small, insignificant points. First it’s not a fucking rip-off it’s a parody, a spoof, something that some people might even consider funny a hell. But whether you do consider it hilarious or a tactless piece of shit or even extremely disturbing, there is one thing it is not and that’s child porn. Bart and Lisa are not real people and while Fox may have a issue with their images usage, that has absolutely nothing to do with it.
It seems to me that way to much shit gets thrown under the blanket protection of CP in an attempt to control our thoughts. Did you know that rabid parents demanded that a high rise building being built next to a day care centre have less stories than planned. This because they feared pedophiles might be looking at their kids. LOOKING. Or then there is this article Topless photo removal ridiculous: mother
Boenig McGrade said she was stunned when told there were concerns that her 2006 photograph of the children, aged 18 months and three, playing in a suburban street might prompt complaints.
She agreed to withdraw the picture but said the photograph, which was taken at the request of the children’s parents, was a typical Australian scene depicting family life.
But lets look at a couple facts.
The laws against possessing child porn were originally introduced because the production of it involved hurting real children. Trafficking and possessing it encourages an industry and thus children, real children, are abused.
Child porn is not illegal because it "might" cause a fucking pedophile to jerk off or to then abuse children. The original laws were concerned with protecting real children.
This issue with the Simpsons cartoons is fucking bothersome becomes it has crossed over into the area of thought crime. The dude is in trouble because of what "might" happen or because he "might" have found the images arousing. No real children have been harmed and the dude might have thought something but performed no action that could be deemed illegal
Using an analogy, many porn sites now have sleep assaults where women are asleep as the man begins molesting her. This might be considered rape and should a dude who gets aroused and jerks off to this be convicted as a rapist?
Outside of the porn realm there are tons of analogies that can be made. Video games which depict violence, excessive speed etc should those that play them be arrested because they might think killing is fun or speeding is cool.
In fact, if memory serves me correctly, a book "Clan of the Cave Bear has a chapter containing descriptions of child rape in it. Should the book be banned because someone might find that scene arousing? Should anyone owning the book be thrown in jail because they might have been turned on and are there for pedophiles.
No one should be prosecuted for a thought, no matter how disgusting that thought may be. It’s actions that are illegal in a free country, not thoughts
Damn, I was so anxious to get this post out, I originally forgot about the babe of the post. To fucking pay for my sins, I’ve got two babes for you
Dude, you been reading my shit for awhile now. How about leaving a fucking comment and letting me fucking know how you feel about the shit I write or possibly Share Chasing The Walrus with Twitter
