Man Arrested For Possession of a Controlled Simpstance
Thanks to the fine detective work of some awesome Aussies in Ipswich, Kurt James Milner was arrested for possession. Possession of what you ask? Well… short answer… pornographic photographs. Longer, creepier answer… pictures of the Simpson children (of the popular Fox franchise, mind you.) in less than “PG” fashion.
To his defense, Mr. Milner was quick to note the images “were just jokes” not meant for personal satisfaction; And come on guys, who doesn’t get an occasional lewd e-mail from a friend or disgusting family member every so often? And who then would choose to save said lewd image on to their hard drives to later show other friends and family? Who? Perverts you say… Point taken. Working even harder against his “it was just a joke defense” came Milner’s 2003 arrest for possession of child exploitation material. Sum 59 images of “non-animated” (That’s “HUMAN” for the rest of us) children were found on his personal computer. Either Milner is an obvious sexual deviant, or he has one sick sense of humor. Sadly, his 2003 arrest garnered him 2 years probation, but no recorded conviction. Lucky for all of us, Kurt decided that his defense was a shallow as his taste, and plead guilty. He was convicted this time, albeit his year long sentence has been given a five year suspension.
And the real tragedy? Milner missed an obvious defense. Lisa Simpson may look like an 8 year old girl, but she’s been on TV for twenty years, taking her several years past the age of consent. And we all know that Simpsons is in a fixed continuity.
This could lead us into an interesting debate concerning what exactly constitutes pornography in the day and age of the internet. Certainly men like Milner (and his Aussie mates Phillip McGuire, and John McEwan) are in the wrong for possessing pictures of the beloved cartoon children in compromising positions. Lest us forget though, even Hugh Hefner got Marge to undress for the pages of Playboy only months ago. But Marge ain’t a child. And we all know blue up-dos are mega hot.
So, what do you all think? Discuss amongst yourselves.
Well, fictional characters aren't people.Porn isn't prohibited but its distribution is restricted. The reason for child pornography to be ilegal is to protect children because they don't have the capacity to consent and therefore are abused when involved in any such activity.A fictional character isn't a person and can't be abused by drawing them in any sexual activity whether they are adult characters or children, it is disgusting, but I doubt it can be considered a crime, however I don't know the content of the laws that can be applied to this case so I have no idea how can they be interpreted by that particular legal system.I would also argue that "drawings" can't be considered "pictures", they are (or can be, at least) the fruit of the imagination of the artist, but since they are not testaments of any actual people or situations, they can't be considered evidence of anything, much less of a crime.
I'm not sure I want to be the first one to comment on this.I get that art and pornography are a blurred line away and mostly on a case by case basis, but eewww. If the guy gets his jollies off doodles or not, I hardly think that in itself should be something to arrest over, the prior arrest is definitely what sets it off. Not sure what to hope for in this guys case.