The A.V. Club reports on the latest of several cases involving arrests for the possession of porn involving animated minors (or minor animations?):
A former middle school teacher in Idaho is facing up to 10 years in prison for downloading Simpsons porn—that is, pornographic cartoons depicting child characters from The Simpsons engaged in sexual acts. After a search warrant led to the discovery of more than 70 such images on his computer, 33-year-old Steven Kutzner immediately resigned and pled guilty at a subsequent hearing.
- Could Simpsons creator Matt Groening be arrested if he drew pornographic images of his own characters? (I'd bet anything that the show's animators have produced obscene images of Bart and Lisa SImpson for their own amusement, but presumably they're safe in Korea.)
- Would it be against the law to possess pornography involving Huey, Duey, and Louie? Sure, they're ducks who don't wear pants, but we're obviously supposed the Disney characters as akin to human children. Or would it be OK because mouths with beaks, by definition, can't be interpreted as "purty"? What's the age of consent for animated waterfowl, anyway?
- If I took the image at right, identified as "Muppet Babies Kermit Hand Puppet" on Amazon.com, and photoshopped a hand going up his posterior, could I be prosecuted for child pornography? Maybe the case would hinge on my state of mind while adding the hand. That is, it would be OK if I were merely illustrating how one operates a hand puppet. But if I had made the leap (sorry) into thinking of Kermit as a real being and decided to illustrate what put that smile on his face...
I don't even want to think about what people are doing to the South Park kids with just a few snips of cardboard.