Monday, December 8, 2008

Australia loses their god damn mind

An Australian judge has ruled "that an animation depicting well-known cartoon characters engaging in sexual acts is child pornography."


Aparantly there's no distinction between abusing, raping, and hurting real children, and drawing silly pictures of fictional characters with their clothes off. Doesn't that just serve to trivialize cases of real abuse? If the label of "sex offender" can apply to anyone in possession of cartoon nudity, won't that take away from the severity of the label when applied properly to actual criminals?

If you have the same reaction to actual pictures of child abuse as you do to the images below, you have some serious mental problems. Problems that you share with the Australian judicial system.

And I guess you can lock me up for creating these horrific images:






P.S.
I wonder if Australia will use this ruling to ban books like Lolita. The rationale for the conviction was

...that the animated cartoon could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children,"
In that context, is the distinction between text and image that important?

No comments: