American Blog

Submitted by YOUR NEW REALITY

The Simpsons are people, too, an Australian judge has declared, even if they’re yellow, made of cartoon and not actually real.

Bizarre :

Cartoon characters are people too, a judge has ruled in the case of a man convicted over cartoons based on The Simpsons, in which children are shown having sex.

It’s demented, but it’s still a cartoon.

In the New South Wales Supreme Court today, Justice Michael Adams ruled that a fictional cartoon character was a “person” within the meaning of the relevant state and commonwealth laws.Alan John McEwan was appealing his February conviction for possessing child pornography and using his computer to access child pornography.

“The alleged pornography comprised a series of cartoons depicting figures modelled on members of the television animated series The Simpsons,” the judge said.

Is this cartoon, or is it real?

The cartoons showed characters such as Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson having sex.

No, it’s definitely cartoon.

McEwan was convicted and fined $3000 and placed on a good behaviour bond.

“In my view, the magistrate was correct in determining that, in respect of both the commonwealth and the NSW offences, the word ‘person’ included fictional or imaginary characters …” the judge said.

Fictional or Imaginary, meaning Not Actually Real.

“… the mere fact that the figure depicted departed from a realistic representation in some respects of a human being did not mean that such a figure was not a ‘person’.”

It’s a cartoon. It’s not a person, it’s not real people, there isn’t actually an eight year old girl called Lisa Simpson, or Bart Simpson. And they’re not actually fucking each other.

But the presentation of images showing them doing such things means the same as it would had the fictional characters been real children.

The Supreme Court judgement officially recognises sexual interaction between cartoon characters as “child pornography”.

This means McEwan was facing a possible 10 years in jail for using a computer to access child porn.

Here it is again :

…the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.

Fritz The Cat is a cartoon that shows felines fucking, constantly, smoking drugs, shooting drugs, does this mean animal welfare groups can sue to stop the distribution of Fritz The Cat because a cartoon cat is the same as a real cat?

And how will such laws deal with videos of disturbingly realistic robot children engaged in sexual acts, or being abused, being raped or assaulted? No doubt, somebody in this sometimes downright bizarre world is either working towards or already making such videos. Obviously they will be banned, because they are realistic representations of human beings, and therefore must be considered Real People. A robot child will be recognised as being as real as a human child.

If such scenarios are to become reality in our courts, and the occasional depravity of human invention means it’s only a matter of time, what then for the robot children whose abuse is deemed illegal to own, or even view?

Will a robot child have the same rights as a human child? If it is illegal to abuse children in cartoons, then how could it be anything else if the target of such horrors was a robot child, whose appearance would be so much more realistic than Bart or Lisa Simpson?

Will we see a Law & Order SVU in three or four years where they find a basement full of battery dead robot children in a mini-studio torture chamber?

What will it mean for someone’s job prospects if they had the conviction of Robo-Pedo on their permanent record?

And this is all a couple of decades before robot lawyers and robot judges get involved.

Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.