Reads the headline on the BBC site. Now..first off..that is not the ruling. It is (even without seeing it), almost certainly porn. The ruling was that it was "child porn", which falls under different rules..having little to do with it's prurient interest and much to do with the protection of children...hence a more liberal interpretation of what should not be allowed. Cartoon characters may well be depicted in pornographic situations...but in no way can they ever be considered children (or adults, or animals, or anything other than drawings...and due the same protections as any other form or artistic expression..like say...words....).
I can't wait to see this logic continued. The headline possibilities are endless.
REAL SIMPSONS CARTOON:
IS CRUEL TO ANIMALS
ENDANGERS CHILDREN
IS LIBELOUS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
PROMOTES ALCOHOLISM
GLAMORIZES VIOLENCE
We don't even want to begin to think what troubles the old Warners cartoon catalog is in if cartoon characters are now considered to be real. But...we do get an indication (since this line of thought has been prevalent in the US for the last quarter century or more), why there have been so few good cartoon shows done in that time. (With...of course...the glaring exceptions of the Simpsons and South Park..which don't even pretend to be made for children).
Here is something that those in power are going to have to get through their heads....since graphic representations and virtual reality will make up much of this century at least. These are methods of expression or art.....and have more in common with the printed word than with the motion picture or photograph. No real people were harmed in the making of this drawing (or this rant..^_^).
May contain nuts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Hi Cliff,
Good points!....i'm pretty sure that there have even been some court decisions that printed words alone...with no pictures and no drawings is enough to constiture child pornography.
i also recall that about a year or two ago a young child in grade two actually got suspended from school for drawing a "stick person" who was holding a gun. The suspension was based on the fact that the school had a "zero" gun tolerance.
Pretty nutty!
love from,
tara
I wonder sometimes if those that protest the loudest are the ones that have some real cause {me thinks the lady protests to much?}
tara,
It's people who take things to extremes, like your gun story, who fuel the ability of the more reactionary elements to ridicule perfectly good rules that applied properly are of benefit to the majority. Should guns be allowed in schools? Of course not...but..I would certainly suggest that that means at the very least that the gun should have a physical component in this dimension...^_^
Anagen,
Well, it is certain that at least the people who brought the case to trial, and the judge, see the characters not as cartoons, but as children. I'm pretty sure that if I went around telling people that Tweety Bird was real a visit to my local psych ward might be suggested..^_^...but it seems to be ok to think that way in law enforcement. Go figure...^_^
Post a Comment