Australian Judge Rules 'Cartoons Are People Too'

**Lee** · 12-08-2008, 09:54 PM

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.

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 McEwen 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.

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

McEwen 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.

"... 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'."

In dismissing the appeal, the judge ordered each party to pay its own legal costs in the first case dealing with the "difficult" issue.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...-29277,00.html

What do you folks think of this, was the judge right to rule that cartoons are people in this case?

This could potentially have far reaching consequences for the industry.

Regards,

Lee

**chadknowslaw** · 12-08-2008, 10:08 PM

I disagree with the Judge's ruling, and such a ruling would have far-reaching effects on more than just the adult industry. A drawing is not a person, it does not have rights, it does not exist and is purely fantasy. Hell, The Simpsons have been around so long Bart must be at least 30 by now!

This is a single judge making this ruling, so I would expect it to be appealed to a higher court. Individual judges make stupid decisions sometimes, and it is up to the higher courts to correct them.

**basschick** · 12-08-2008, 11:22 PM

not only far-reaching consequences, but stupid ones. cartoons are people, too? when's the last time he saw a toon working in a supermarket or moving into a condo in his complex? do we have to give toons jobs? can we be sued by mickey for using his name in a denigrating fashion if we say something poorly crafted is "mickey mouse"?

oh, for fuck's sake - half the time we don't treat real 3D physical human beings as people. and 2 dogs having sex on the street aren't arrested for indecency. why? because they're not people - and they at least have a 3D form that exists in our world instead of being artwork or digital.

**Squirt** · 12-09-2008, 05:34 AM

Wow this is strange.

I can understand where the judge is coming from but the implications are enormous. One small implication; will they have to rate cartoons now and not show any with violence in the morning?

Australia is a strange place. Prostitution is legal and Gays can have civil unions but Gays can't adopt children and filming porn (in some areas) is illegal. It's also been illegal to host porn in Australia for years.

Australians don't tend to go way overboard on things like we do in the states, so it's possible they will relegate this ruling just to cartoons and porn, not other aspects of our new people friends... the toons. :thumbsup: