<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_28_0112246</id>
	<title>Man in Court Over Simpsons Porn</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1264702500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Ever get the urge to look at pornographic drawings of famous cartoon children? Neither do I, but 28-year-old Kurt James Milner did, and that's what got him registered as a sex offender. Police received a tip about the pornographic material and eventually found images featuring <a href="http://www.qt.com.au/story/2010/01/26/an-ipswich-man-has-admitted-downloading-graphic-ca/">child characters from The Simpsons and The Powerpuff Girls</a> on Milner's computer. Back in 2008, a Supreme Court judge in Australia ruled that <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/08/12/08/1515211/Australian-Judge-Rules-Simpsons-Cartoon-Rip-off-Is-Child-Porn">cartoons in which child characters engage in sexual acts is child pornography</a>. Milner said he downloaded the images to show them to his friend 'because he believed they were funny.' Guess it's not so funny now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever get the urge to look at pornographic drawings of famous cartoon children ?
Neither do I , but 28-year-old Kurt James Milner did , and that 's what got him registered as a sex offender .
Police received a tip about the pornographic material and eventually found images featuring child characters from The Simpsons and The Powerpuff Girls on Milner 's computer .
Back in 2008 , a Supreme Court judge in Australia ruled that cartoons in which child characters engage in sexual acts is child pornography .
Milner said he downloaded the images to show them to his friend 'because he believed they were funny .
' Guess it 's not so funny now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever get the urge to look at pornographic drawings of famous cartoon children?
Neither do I, but 28-year-old Kurt James Milner did, and that's what got him registered as a sex offender.
Police received a tip about the pornographic material and eventually found images featuring child characters from The Simpsons and The Powerpuff Girls on Milner's computer.
Back in 2008, a Supreme Court judge in Australia ruled that cartoons in which child characters engage in sexual acts is child pornography.
Milner said he downloaded the images to show them to his friend 'because he believed they were funny.
' Guess it's not so funny now.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930544</id>
	<title>Re:Cartoon porn is still porn</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1264711320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm fairly sure the first drawing of Lisa is WAY older than 18 years by now, which makes her an adult by all legal standards.</p><p>What? It's silly to the extreme already, why not kick it up a notch?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fairly sure the first drawing of Lisa is WAY older than 18 years by now , which makes her an adult by all legal standards.What ?
It 's silly to the extreme already , why not kick it up a notch ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fairly sure the first drawing of Lisa is WAY older than 18 years by now, which makes her an adult by all legal standards.What?
It's silly to the extreme already, why not kick it up a notch?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930530</id>
	<title>All hail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264711080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All hail the Pedo Finder General!</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvsoVdvtZC4" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvsoVdvtZC4</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All hail the Pedo Finder General ! http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = UvsoVdvtZC4 [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All hail the Pedo Finder General!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvsoVdvtZC4 [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931546</id>
	<title>Olympics?</title>
	<author>mcwidget</author>
	<datestamp>1264680060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't been able to look at the 2012 Olympics in the same way since reading this: <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/29/olympic\_logo\_lisa\_simpson/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/29/olympic\_logo\_lisa\_simpson/</a> [theregister.co.uk]

Potentially they could be in trouble then?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't been able to look at the 2012 Olympics in the same way since reading this : http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/29/olympic \ _logo \ _lisa \ _simpson/ [ theregister.co.uk ] Potentially they could be in trouble then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't been able to look at the 2012 Olympics in the same way since reading this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/29/olympic\_logo\_lisa\_simpson/ [theregister.co.uk]

Potentially they could be in trouble then?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932042</id>
	<title>Re:Aren't child pornography for protecting childre</title>
	<author>metacell</author>
	<datestamp>1264687200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The likeness of the characters is copyrighted, not just specific images of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The likeness of the characters is copyrighted , not just specific images of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The likeness of the characters is copyrighted, not just specific images of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930404</id>
	<title>Underaged?</title>
	<author>flaptrap</author>
	<datestamp>1264709700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will drink no Aussie Beer aged ten years or over.  Make that however long it takes to get to the stores in the States plus a week or two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will drink no Aussie Beer aged ten years or over .
Make that however long it takes to get to the stores in the States plus a week or two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will drink no Aussie Beer aged ten years or over.
Make that however long it takes to get to the stores in the States plus a week or two.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930802</id>
	<title>Re:Not any more</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264671120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These things always sadden me.  People in the US have a tendency to think of knee jerk save the children witch hunts as uniquely american.  Every time I read about the same BS in the UK and Oz or canada it just pisses me off.  I just get this desperate feeling that there is no where left to move to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These things always sadden me .
People in the US have a tendency to think of knee jerk save the children witch hunts as uniquely american .
Every time I read about the same BS in the UK and Oz or canada it just pisses me off .
I just get this desperate feeling that there is no where left to move to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These things always sadden me.
People in the US have a tendency to think of knee jerk save the children witch hunts as uniquely american.
Every time I read about the same BS in the UK and Oz or canada it just pisses me off.
I just get this desperate feeling that there is no where left to move to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930484</id>
	<title>Violent games</title>
	<author>Dracil</author>
	<datestamp>1264710600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this basically the same arguments people make to ban violent games?  You get excited from killing fake people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this basically the same arguments people make to ban violent games ?
You get excited from killing fake people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this basically the same arguments people make to ban violent games?
You get excited from killing fake people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30940014</id>
	<title>Thanks for the warning</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1264670100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've got all the 12 year old girls chained in my basement deleting my collection of Lisa Simpson pictures at this very moment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got all the 12 year old girls chained in my basement deleting my collection of Lisa Simpson pictures at this very moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got all the 12 year old girls chained in my basement deleting my collection of Lisa Simpson pictures at this very moment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930882</id>
	<title>Re:Bart's Unit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264672260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only if  you are in stupid Australia. Your Aussie Government are really get to be a bunch of wankers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only if you are in stupid Australia .
Your Aussie Government are really get to be a bunch of wankers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only if  you are in stupid Australia.
Your Aussie Government are really get to be a bunch of wankers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932730</id>
	<title>Re:Not any more</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1264691460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Not that I'm TOO surprised to hear about something that idiotic<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but could you please provide a source? It seems like a bit of an overreaction even for the Save-Our-Kids fanatics.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Aks and ye shall receive: <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/07/02/10/1752233/Teens-Prosecuted-For-Racy-Photos" title="slashdot.org">http://yro.slashdot.org/story/07/02/10/1752233/Teens-Prosecuted-For-Racy-Photos</a> [slashdot.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I 'm TOO surprised to hear about something that idiotic ... but could you please provide a source ?
It seems like a bit of an overreaction even for the Save-Our-Kids fanatics .
Aks and ye shall receive : http : //yro.slashdot.org/story/07/02/10/1752233/Teens-Prosecuted-For-Racy-Photos [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I'm TOO surprised to hear about something that idiotic ... but could you please provide a source?
It seems like a bit of an overreaction even for the Save-Our-Kids fanatics.
Aks and ye shall receive: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/07/02/10/1752233/Teens-Prosecuted-For-Racy-Photos [slashdot.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930428</id>
	<title>Re:Bad write up.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264710000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"It's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn. But, the 'cartoon porn' court ruling should be thrown out, and the supreme court judge(s) should be removed from the bench."

The whole thing certainly makes no sense, but that is NOT HOW A CIVILISED STATE WORKS.

What happens, if the supreme court is interpreting the laws in a certain way that is not really what was intended, but because the law was written in a certain way is that the legislative authorities MAKE AN AMENDMENT to the law, clarifying the situation, the previous convictions by the law still stands however.

It is not the fault of the judge if the law is not clear on the topic. I am sure they did not really define child porn as being between two natural persons, just some other vague description that also included cartoons. This is the fault of the law, not the judge who interprets the law as it is written.

This is called rule of law and is one of the most important foundations for a free society and civilisation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn .
But , the 'cartoon porn ' court ruling should be thrown out , and the supreme court judge ( s ) should be removed from the bench .
" The whole thing certainly makes no sense , but that is NOT HOW A CIVILISED STATE WORKS .
What happens , if the supreme court is interpreting the laws in a certain way that is not really what was intended , but because the law was written in a certain way is that the legislative authorities MAKE AN AMENDMENT to the law , clarifying the situation , the previous convictions by the law still stands however .
It is not the fault of the judge if the law is not clear on the topic .
I am sure they did not really define child porn as being between two natural persons , just some other vague description that also included cartoons .
This is the fault of the law , not the judge who interprets the law as it is written .
This is called rule of law and is one of the most important foundations for a free society and civilisation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn.
But, the 'cartoon porn' court ruling should be thrown out, and the supreme court judge(s) should be removed from the bench.
"

The whole thing certainly makes no sense, but that is NOT HOW A CIVILISED STATE WORKS.
What happens, if the supreme court is interpreting the laws in a certain way that is not really what was intended, but because the law was written in a certain way is that the legislative authorities MAKE AN AMENDMENT to the law, clarifying the situation, the previous convictions by the law still stands however.
It is not the fault of the judge if the law is not clear on the topic.
I am sure they did not really define child porn as being between two natural persons, just some other vague description that also included cartoons.
This is the fault of the law, not the judge who interprets the law as it is written.
This is called rule of law and is one of the most important foundations for a free society and civilisation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30934604</id>
	<title>Re:never under estimate the stupidity of the law</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1264698840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, just write at the bottom of each page "(c) Author. All fictional, non-real characters depicted in this scene are over the legal age of consent to appear in a sexual scene depiction reproduced on film, or in digital form, in $country."<br> <br>That should do it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , just write at the bottom of each page " ( c ) Author .
All fictional , non-real characters depicted in this scene are over the legal age of consent to appear in a sexual scene depiction reproduced on film , or in digital form , in $ country .
" That should do it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, just write at the bottom of each page "(c) Author.
All fictional, non-real characters depicted in this scene are over the legal age of consent to appear in a sexual scene depiction reproduced on film, or in digital form, in $country.
" That should do it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930424</id>
	<title>In all fairness...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264709880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aren't the children of The Simpsons, like real old by now? They were like under 10 back in 1989. Wouldn't they be at least 30 by now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't the children of The Simpsons , like real old by now ?
They were like under 10 back in 1989 .
Would n't they be at least 30 by now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't the children of The Simpsons, like real old by now?
They were like under 10 back in 1989.
Wouldn't they be at least 30 by now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931440</id>
	<title>Re:Simpsons Already Did It!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264678740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More relevant, Bart flashed his schlong in the Simpsons Movie. Are they going to arrest everyone who's seen that too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More relevant , Bart flashed his schlong in the Simpsons Movie .
Are they going to arrest everyone who 's seen that too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More relevant, Bart flashed his schlong in the Simpsons Movie.
Are they going to arrest everyone who's seen that too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30960756</id>
	<title>The real test...</title>
	<author>mbowers52</author>
	<datestamp>1264848660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>D'oh balls!</htmltext>
<tokenext>D'oh balls !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>D'oh balls!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.31000644</id>
	<title>Re:Bad write up.</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1265102820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is ostensibly there to prevent exploitation of children, which happens during the creation of the child porn.</p></div><p>There is the argument to be made that viewing sexualized images of children reinforces urges to exploit actual children in those who have those urges already. The rest of us are turned off by these images, so the worst thing that can happen from the images alone is desensitization.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn. But, the 'cartoon porn' court ruling should be thrown out, and the supreme court judge(s) should be removed from the bench.</p></div><p>I do agree with this part. Either there's a basis in law, or there should not be a conviction. This doesn't mean I necessarily think that sex offenders should be viewing cartoon porn involving children, only that I think convicting them of it when it's not even a crime is wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is ostensibly there to prevent exploitation of children , which happens during the creation of the child porn.There is the argument to be made that viewing sexualized images of children reinforces urges to exploit actual children in those who have those urges already .
The rest of us are turned off by these images , so the worst thing that can happen from the images alone is desensitization.It 's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn .
But , the 'cartoon porn ' court ruling should be thrown out , and the supreme court judge ( s ) should be removed from the bench.I do agree with this part .
Either there 's a basis in law , or there should not be a conviction .
This does n't mean I necessarily think that sex offenders should be viewing cartoon porn involving children , only that I think convicting them of it when it 's not even a crime is wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is ostensibly there to prevent exploitation of children, which happens during the creation of the child porn.There is the argument to be made that viewing sexualized images of children reinforces urges to exploit actual children in those who have those urges already.
The rest of us are turned off by these images, so the worst thing that can happen from the images alone is desensitization.It's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn.
But, the 'cartoon porn' court ruling should be thrown out, and the supreme court judge(s) should be removed from the bench.I do agree with this part.
Either there's a basis in law, or there should not be a conviction.
This doesn't mean I necessarily think that sex offenders should be viewing cartoon porn involving children, only that I think convicting them of it when it's not even a crime is wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30945098</id>
	<title>DOH!!!</title>
	<author>FragHARD</author>
	<datestamp>1264693620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>[homer voice]Oh why me????   DOH!!!.[/homer voice]</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ homer voice ] Oh why me ? ? ? ?
DOH ! ! ! . [ /homer voice ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[homer voice]Oh why me????
DOH!!!.[/homer voice]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30935936</id>
	<title>Australian age of Consent</title>
	<author>Dixie\_Flatline</author>
	<datestamp>1264702380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised that none of the comments that I've read so far point out the Australian age of Consent, which is 16, as it is in many other western nations.</p><p>I'll wait for you to think about this briefly.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Right, so it's ILLEGAL to photograph a 16 year old having sex, or DRAW a 16 year old having sex, but it's 100\% legal to ACTUALLY HAVE SEX with a 16 year old.</p><p>They can consent to the ACT, but they can't consent to the DEPICTION OF THE ACT.</p><p>Even worse, with the recent ruling that photographing women with small breasts may ALSO be illegal, depending on how young they look, it means that it's possible that you'd be breaking the law taking a picture of a 25 year old woman with A-cup breasts, but it would be fine to have sex with her 16 year old sister.<br>(http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/australia-bans-small-breasts/)</p><p>How's THAT for internal consistency?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised that none of the comments that I 've read so far point out the Australian age of Consent , which is 16 , as it is in many other western nations.I 'll wait for you to think about this briefly .
...Right , so it 's ILLEGAL to photograph a 16 year old having sex , or DRAW a 16 year old having sex , but it 's 100 \ % legal to ACTUALLY HAVE SEX with a 16 year old.They can consent to the ACT , but they ca n't consent to the DEPICTION OF THE ACT.Even worse , with the recent ruling that photographing women with small breasts may ALSO be illegal , depending on how young they look , it means that it 's possible that you 'd be breaking the law taking a picture of a 25 year old woman with A-cup breasts , but it would be fine to have sex with her 16 year old sister .
( http : //www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/australia-bans-small-breasts/ ) How 's THAT for internal consistency ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised that none of the comments that I've read so far point out the Australian age of Consent, which is 16, as it is in many other western nations.I'll wait for you to think about this briefly.
...Right, so it's ILLEGAL to photograph a 16 year old having sex, or DRAW a 16 year old having sex, but it's 100\% legal to ACTUALLY HAVE SEX with a 16 year old.They can consent to the ACT, but they can't consent to the DEPICTION OF THE ACT.Even worse, with the recent ruling that photographing women with small breasts may ALSO be illegal, depending on how young they look, it means that it's possible that you'd be breaking the law taking a picture of a 25 year old woman with A-cup breasts, but it would be fine to have sex with her 16 year old sister.
(http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/australia-bans-small-breasts/)How's THAT for internal consistency?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930356</id>
	<title>Re:Cartoon porn is still porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264709040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, every one of those steps is censorship.</p><p>What's in place now is censorship, too. It's just milder - for now.</p><p>Also, art censorship in Australia is nothing new. Internet censorship is coming in. The government has even enacted laws that allow them to censor political representatives' reports to their constituents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , every one of those steps is censorship.What 's in place now is censorship , too .
It 's just milder - for now.Also , art censorship in Australia is nothing new .
Internet censorship is coming in .
The government has even enacted laws that allow them to censor political representatives ' reports to their constituents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, every one of those steps is censorship.What's in place now is censorship, too.
It's just milder - for now.Also, art censorship in Australia is nothing new.
Internet censorship is coming in.
The government has even enacted laws that allow them to censor political representatives' reports to their constituents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933068</id>
	<title>All the simpsons are "legal" adults</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264693560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I were this guy, this would be my defense...</p><p>The Simpsons have existed for 20+ years. Yes, they may have childlike features, but they are all past the age of consent, even Maggie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were this guy , this would be my defense...The Simpsons have existed for 20 + years .
Yes , they may have childlike features , but they are all past the age of consent , even Maggie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were this guy, this would be my defense...The Simpsons have existed for 20+ years.
Yes, they may have childlike features, but they are all past the age of consent, even Maggie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932350</id>
	<title>Re:Bad write up.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264689360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah this is no more child porn than a 25 year old dressing up in a schoolgirl outfit.<br>Not that it wasn't reasonable to account for historical activity but is it legal to judge a case based on previous convictions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah this is no more child porn than a 25 year old dressing up in a schoolgirl outfit.Not that it was n't reasonable to account for historical activity but is it legal to judge a case based on previous convictions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah this is no more child porn than a 25 year old dressing up in a schoolgirl outfit.Not that it wasn't reasonable to account for historical activity but is it legal to judge a case based on previous convictions?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932624</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264690860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree completely.  Asking a pedophile to avoid child porn is like asking a typical man to avoid adult porn: the sexual urges are no doubt similar.  With cartoons and computer simulation, a pedophile could find relief without any children being harmed in the process (as long as the images remain discreet).  I fear that this prohibition on simulated child pornography is only driving some pedophiles into desperation, where they might do something stupid.</p><p>It does depend on one's theory of pornography and sex, however: does porn relieve sexual urges or heighten them?  If the former, then simulated child porn is good; if the latter, it's dangerous.  Unfortunately, it might be both, depending on the person: whether they have obsessive or addictive tendencies, for instance.  It's a difficult issue, something that the various national governments do not seem to recognize.  They have to start from the fact that pedophilia is inborn, just like all other sexual desires and fetishes (who chooses to be a pedophile, or to be sexually attracted to shoes?). While the act of exploiting or sexually abusing children is a vile one which needs to be punished, I suspect that for every pedophile who is caught doing something evil like this, there are many others who suffer in silence, and those people need our help and sympathy, not expressions of horror.</p><p>(I've never posted AC before but it occurs to me that someone might read this and guess that I am a pedophile.  I am not, but the label of pedophile is so toxic that I don't want it tarnishing my identity here.  Ironic perhaps, sad and spineless, but there it is.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree completely .
Asking a pedophile to avoid child porn is like asking a typical man to avoid adult porn : the sexual urges are no doubt similar .
With cartoons and computer simulation , a pedophile could find relief without any children being harmed in the process ( as long as the images remain discreet ) .
I fear that this prohibition on simulated child pornography is only driving some pedophiles into desperation , where they might do something stupid.It does depend on one 's theory of pornography and sex , however : does porn relieve sexual urges or heighten them ?
If the former , then simulated child porn is good ; if the latter , it 's dangerous .
Unfortunately , it might be both , depending on the person : whether they have obsessive or addictive tendencies , for instance .
It 's a difficult issue , something that the various national governments do not seem to recognize .
They have to start from the fact that pedophilia is inborn , just like all other sexual desires and fetishes ( who chooses to be a pedophile , or to be sexually attracted to shoes ? ) .
While the act of exploiting or sexually abusing children is a vile one which needs to be punished , I suspect that for every pedophile who is caught doing something evil like this , there are many others who suffer in silence , and those people need our help and sympathy , not expressions of horror .
( I 've never posted AC before but it occurs to me that someone might read this and guess that I am a pedophile .
I am not , but the label of pedophile is so toxic that I do n't want it tarnishing my identity here .
Ironic perhaps , sad and spineless , but there it is .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree completely.
Asking a pedophile to avoid child porn is like asking a typical man to avoid adult porn: the sexual urges are no doubt similar.
With cartoons and computer simulation, a pedophile could find relief without any children being harmed in the process (as long as the images remain discreet).
I fear that this prohibition on simulated child pornography is only driving some pedophiles into desperation, where they might do something stupid.It does depend on one's theory of pornography and sex, however: does porn relieve sexual urges or heighten them?
If the former, then simulated child porn is good; if the latter, it's dangerous.
Unfortunately, it might be both, depending on the person: whether they have obsessive or addictive tendencies, for instance.
It's a difficult issue, something that the various national governments do not seem to recognize.
They have to start from the fact that pedophilia is inborn, just like all other sexual desires and fetishes (who chooses to be a pedophile, or to be sexually attracted to shoes?).
While the act of exploiting or sexually abusing children is a vile one which needs to be punished, I suspect that for every pedophile who is caught doing something evil like this, there are many others who suffer in silence, and those people need our help and sympathy, not expressions of horror.
(I've never posted AC before but it occurs to me that someone might read this and guess that I am a pedophile.
I am not, but the label of pedophile is so toxic that I don't want it tarnishing my identity here.
Ironic perhaps, sad and spineless, but there it is.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931822</id>
	<title>Re:A fine line has been drawn</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1264684740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Distributing actual child porn may encourage the creation of child porn, but it doesn't turn otherwise normal hetereosexual people into pedophiles.</p></div></blockquote><p>Does it turn normal homosexual people into pedophiles?  Or do you think they're all pedophiles anyway?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Distributing actual child porn may encourage the creation of child porn , but it does n't turn otherwise normal hetereosexual people into pedophiles.Does it turn normal homosexual people into pedophiles ?
Or do you think they 're all pedophiles anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Distributing actual child porn may encourage the creation of child porn, but it doesn't turn otherwise normal hetereosexual people into pedophiles.Does it turn normal homosexual people into pedophiles?
Or do you think they're all pedophiles anyway?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933512</id>
	<title>Car Analogy</title>
	<author>colonelquesadilla</author>
	<datestamp>1264695660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't found a car analogy I like yet, so I am going to make one.  You are walking down the street, and see a car shaped monopoly piece.  You pick it up and put it in your pocket.  The police then arrest you for grand theft auto.  You then defend yourself by saying "it's not even a real car".  The judge, jury, and slashdotters respond by say "yes but when you were in high school we caught you stealing a real car, so you must have been meaning to do that now."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't found a car analogy I like yet , so I am going to make one .
You are walking down the street , and see a car shaped monopoly piece .
You pick it up and put it in your pocket .
The police then arrest you for grand theft auto .
You then defend yourself by saying " it 's not even a real car " .
The judge , jury , and slashdotters respond by say " yes but when you were in high school we caught you stealing a real car , so you must have been meaning to do that now .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't found a car analogy I like yet, so I am going to make one.
You are walking down the street, and see a car shaped monopoly piece.
You pick it up and put it in your pocket.
The police then arrest you for grand theft auto.
You then defend yourself by saying "it's not even a real car".
The judge, jury, and slashdotters respond by say "yes but when you were in high school we caught you stealing a real car, so you must have been meaning to do that now.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30944472</id>
	<title>Re:Bad write up.</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1264688520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Or, replaced with cartoon judges.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I cannot fathom this kind of logic.

Are you saying that a drawing of a judge is not a depiction of a judge yet a photograph of a judge is?</p><blockquote><div><p>If cartoons of kiddie porn are the equivalent of actual kiddie porn</p></div></blockquote><p>

Yes, both are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction" title="wikipedia.org">depictions</a> [wikipedia.org] of sexual acts with a minor.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , replaced with cartoon judges .
I can not fathom this kind of logic .
Are you saying that a drawing of a judge is not a depiction of a judge yet a photograph of a judge is ? If cartoons of kiddie porn are the equivalent of actual kiddie porn Yes , both are depictions [ wikipedia.org ] of sexual acts with a minor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, replaced with cartoon judges.
I cannot fathom this kind of logic.
Are you saying that a drawing of a judge is not a depiction of a judge yet a photograph of a judge is?If cartoons of kiddie porn are the equivalent of actual kiddie porn

Yes, both are depictions [wikipedia.org] of sexual acts with a minor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30969226</id>
	<title>Facepalm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264938600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's no surprise Australia used to be a penal colony.  That country is full of dicks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's no surprise Australia used to be a penal colony .
That country is full of dicks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's no surprise Australia used to be a penal colony.
That country is full of dicks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30934920</id>
	<title>Re:Bad write up.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn. But, the 'cartoon porn' court ruling should be thrown out, and the supreme court judge(s) should be removed from the bench.</p></div><p>One would just need to go outside and spray paint a naked stick figure onto his car door, and label it '7 year old girl'<br>(Extra points if you can spray paint lisa simpson there!)</p><p>At that point, the car is rock solid proof that the judge is in possession of child pornography and needs to be registered as a sex offender and put in prison (He can't argue with a judges ruling after all)</p><p>Sadly while the judge is being beaten and tortured in prison by the other inmates he put there for not doing anything wrong, he won't have much time alive for reflection on his poor choices and life ruining desires.</p><p>I'm not making any call about this guy one way or the other, since this is slashdot and the editors couldn't put the whole story or the actual facts into the summary if their life depended on it.</p><p>But the law is horible and needs removed.  Putting everyone (every last one) of the people responsible for passing it in prison under it will make a good lead on that.<br>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn .
But , the 'cartoon porn ' court ruling should be thrown out , and the supreme court judge ( s ) should be removed from the bench.One would just need to go outside and spray paint a naked stick figure onto his car door , and label it '7 year old girl ' ( Extra points if you can spray paint lisa simpson there !
) At that point , the car is rock solid proof that the judge is in possession of child pornography and needs to be registered as a sex offender and put in prison ( He ca n't argue with a judges ruling after all ) Sadly while the judge is being beaten and tortured in prison by the other inmates he put there for not doing anything wrong , he wo n't have much time alive for reflection on his poor choices and life ruining desires.I 'm not making any call about this guy one way or the other , since this is slashdot and the editors could n't put the whole story or the actual facts into the summary if their life depended on it.But the law is horible and needs removed .
Putting everyone ( every last one ) of the people responsible for passing it in prison under it will make a good lead on that .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn.
But, the 'cartoon porn' court ruling should be thrown out, and the supreme court judge(s) should be removed from the bench.One would just need to go outside and spray paint a naked stick figure onto his car door, and label it '7 year old girl'(Extra points if you can spray paint lisa simpson there!
)At that point, the car is rock solid proof that the judge is in possession of child pornography and needs to be registered as a sex offender and put in prison (He can't argue with a judges ruling after all)Sadly while the judge is being beaten and tortured in prison by the other inmates he put there for not doing anything wrong, he won't have much time alive for reflection on his poor choices and life ruining desires.I'm not making any call about this guy one way or the other, since this is slashdot and the editors couldn't put the whole story or the actual facts into the summary if their life depended on it.But the law is horible and needs removed.
Putting everyone (every last one) of the people responsible for passing it in prison under it will make a good lead on that.
 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932048</id>
	<title>It's a spiritual matter</title>
	<author>allseason radial</author>
	<datestamp>1264687260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if it turns out that every time a child kneels beside her bed to recite, "Now I lay me down to sleep...", God bellows, "SMITHERS, RELEASE THE HOUNDS!" Then what? What are we gonna do then, huh?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if it turns out that every time a child kneels beside her bed to recite , " Now I lay me down to sleep... " , God bellows , " SMITHERS , RELEASE THE HOUNDS !
" Then what ?
What are we gon na do then , huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if it turns out that every time a child kneels beside her bed to recite, "Now I lay me down to sleep...", God bellows, "SMITHERS, RELEASE THE HOUNDS!
" Then what?
What are we gonna do then, huh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930136</id>
	<title>Insanity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264619820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931524</id>
	<title>from a tip-off!</title>
	<author>DrSkwid</author>
	<datestamp>1264679820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about you but if someone showed me a gif of Lisa Simpson fingering Comic Book Guy in the ass I wouldn't be rushing to pick up the police child porn hotline. So perhaps there's a bit more to this than meets the eye.</p><p>And damn, them Power Puff Girls is hot. Is it illegal to masturbate while watching Nickelodeon now? Its hard to keep a steady rhytm to avoid jizzing when Dexter is on screen!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about you but if someone showed me a gif of Lisa Simpson fingering Comic Book Guy in the ass I would n't be rushing to pick up the police child porn hotline .
So perhaps there 's a bit more to this than meets the eye.And damn , them Power Puff Girls is hot .
Is it illegal to masturbate while watching Nickelodeon now ?
Its hard to keep a steady rhytm to avoid jizzing when Dexter is on screen !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about you but if someone showed me a gif of Lisa Simpson fingering Comic Book Guy in the ass I wouldn't be rushing to pick up the police child porn hotline.
So perhaps there's a bit more to this than meets the eye.And damn, them Power Puff Girls is hot.
Is it illegal to masturbate while watching Nickelodeon now?
Its hard to keep a steady rhytm to avoid jizzing when Dexter is on screen!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931108</id>
	<title>Re:Bart's Unit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264674780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd be more concerned about anyone who has seen the 2012 olumpic logo:</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be more concerned about anyone who has seen the 2012 olumpic logo :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be more concerned about anyone who has seen the 2012 olumpic logo:</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932736</id>
	<title>We're gonna have a lot more people on that list...</title>
	<author>ewenix</author>
	<datestamp>1264691520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this mean that everyone who purchased the Simpsons Movie (which contains a nude scene of Bart skateboarding)<br>
is now a sex offender?   Doesn't this mean the folks who produced the show should be prosecuted now too?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean that everyone who purchased the Simpsons Movie ( which contains a nude scene of Bart skateboarding ) is now a sex offender ?
Does n't this mean the folks who produced the show should be prosecuted now too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean that everyone who purchased the Simpsons Movie (which contains a nude scene of Bart skateboarding)
is now a sex offender?
Doesn't this mean the folks who produced the show should be prosecuted now too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931422</id>
	<title>Re:Cartoon porn is still porn</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1264678620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All we need now is government-mandated scheduled doses of Prozium and dudes in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehru\_jacket" title="wikipedia.org">Nehru style suits</a> [wikipedia.org] pistol-whipping heavily armed military personnel, and we'll be in the ideal society!</htmltext>
<tokenext>All we need now is government-mandated scheduled doses of Prozium and dudes in Nehru style suits [ wikipedia.org ] pistol-whipping heavily armed military personnel , and we 'll be in the ideal society !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All we need now is government-mandated scheduled doses of Prozium and dudes in Nehru style suits [wikipedia.org] pistol-whipping heavily armed military personnel, and we'll be in the ideal society!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930638</id>
	<title>Re:Not any more</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264669260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something that scares me about all these laws is how easily you could either accidentally run across child pornography (on any sort of image sharing website, particularly of the pornographic kind, for example) or be tricked into it -- and then have no recourse, since it's all 'for the children'. Many people will click random links a <em>some</em> point in their lives. I've also heard stories (or ideas, at least) of setting up websites that embed those FBI/etc. honey pot pages/images, with otherwise innocuous content (as a 'funny joke' on someone -- ha, ha, you're in jail).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something that scares me about all these laws is how easily you could either accidentally run across child pornography ( on any sort of image sharing website , particularly of the pornographic kind , for example ) or be tricked into it -- and then have no recourse , since it 's all 'for the children' .
Many people will click random links a some point in their lives .
I 've also heard stories ( or ideas , at least ) of setting up websites that embed those FBI/etc .
honey pot pages/images , with otherwise innocuous content ( as a 'funny joke ' on someone -- ha , ha , you 're in jail ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something that scares me about all these laws is how easily you could either accidentally run across child pornography (on any sort of image sharing website, particularly of the pornographic kind, for example) or be tricked into it -- and then have no recourse, since it's all 'for the children'.
Many people will click random links a some point in their lives.
I've also heard stories (or ideas, at least) of setting up websites that embed those FBI/etc.
honey pot pages/images, with otherwise innocuous content (as a 'funny joke' on someone -- ha, ha, you're in jail).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930360</id>
	<title>A fine line has been drawn</title>
	<author>Ace905</author>
	<datestamp>1264709160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This guy is obviously a pedophile, the article points out he has a prior conviction of posession of actual child pornography.  His defense that the images were just funny is a total lie -- and other people have pointed this out.</p><p>The problem I have with this case is that the guy is disgusting, his motives were obvious and so it is very easy to support his conviction. But with Cartoons, it could be argued that there is \_no victim\_ at all.  And as much as I hate pedophiles, and I do - I don't believe that the images, real or cartoon, actually encourage pedophile tendencies.</p><p>Images of children being exploited sexually have been banned all over the world because the children have to be protected from those images remaining in circulation for their entire lifetime; images of children being exploited sexually encourage other pedophiles to exploit more children on camera for the purpose of trading images, etc.  BUT with the case of a cartoon -- none of these reasons hold true, and more importantly, at best - they encourage pedophiles to draw cartoons of children being sexually exploited which, as i said, doesn't create any victims.  Distributing actual child porn may encourage the creation of child porn, but it doesn't turn otherwise normal hetereosexual people into pedophiles.  You have to be a pedophile to begin with to even want it.</p><p>Now that this guy has been charged, and this is obviously a precedent setting case - it will be easier to charge and dole out harsh sentences for people found posessing cartoon porn even if it is their first offense and they really aren't pedophiles.  I mean, cartoons are sometimes funny and in the case of Simpsons porn - I know I've seen a few cartoons featuring Bart and Lisa that were funny and.... at least to me, not sexually exciting at all.  I mean christ, they're cartoons.</p><p>It seems to me that they've gone after an easy person to hate, with a history of child porn collecting - to blindside people to the over zealous and really very useless law they've just created.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy is obviously a pedophile , the article points out he has a prior conviction of posession of actual child pornography .
His defense that the images were just funny is a total lie -- and other people have pointed this out.The problem I have with this case is that the guy is disgusting , his motives were obvious and so it is very easy to support his conviction .
But with Cartoons , it could be argued that there is \ _no victim \ _ at all .
And as much as I hate pedophiles , and I do - I do n't believe that the images , real or cartoon , actually encourage pedophile tendencies.Images of children being exploited sexually have been banned all over the world because the children have to be protected from those images remaining in circulation for their entire lifetime ; images of children being exploited sexually encourage other pedophiles to exploit more children on camera for the purpose of trading images , etc .
BUT with the case of a cartoon -- none of these reasons hold true , and more importantly , at best - they encourage pedophiles to draw cartoons of children being sexually exploited which , as i said , does n't create any victims .
Distributing actual child porn may encourage the creation of child porn , but it does n't turn otherwise normal hetereosexual people into pedophiles .
You have to be a pedophile to begin with to even want it.Now that this guy has been charged , and this is obviously a precedent setting case - it will be easier to charge and dole out harsh sentences for people found posessing cartoon porn even if it is their first offense and they really are n't pedophiles .
I mean , cartoons are sometimes funny and in the case of Simpsons porn - I know I 've seen a few cartoons featuring Bart and Lisa that were funny and.... at least to me , not sexually exciting at all .
I mean christ , they 're cartoons.It seems to me that they 've gone after an easy person to hate , with a history of child porn collecting - to blindside people to the over zealous and really very useless law they 've just created .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy is obviously a pedophile, the article points out he has a prior conviction of posession of actual child pornography.
His defense that the images were just funny is a total lie -- and other people have pointed this out.The problem I have with this case is that the guy is disgusting, his motives were obvious and so it is very easy to support his conviction.
But with Cartoons, it could be argued that there is \_no victim\_ at all.
And as much as I hate pedophiles, and I do - I don't believe that the images, real or cartoon, actually encourage pedophile tendencies.Images of children being exploited sexually have been banned all over the world because the children have to be protected from those images remaining in circulation for their entire lifetime; images of children being exploited sexually encourage other pedophiles to exploit more children on camera for the purpose of trading images, etc.
BUT with the case of a cartoon -- none of these reasons hold true, and more importantly, at best - they encourage pedophiles to draw cartoons of children being sexually exploited which, as i said, doesn't create any victims.
Distributing actual child porn may encourage the creation of child porn, but it doesn't turn otherwise normal hetereosexual people into pedophiles.
You have to be a pedophile to begin with to even want it.Now that this guy has been charged, and this is obviously a precedent setting case - it will be easier to charge and dole out harsh sentences for people found posessing cartoon porn even if it is their first offense and they really aren't pedophiles.
I mean, cartoons are sometimes funny and in the case of Simpsons porn - I know I've seen a few cartoons featuring Bart and Lisa that were funny and.... at least to me, not sexually exciting at all.
I mean christ, they're cartoons.It seems to me that they've gone after an easy person to hate, with a history of child porn collecting - to blindside people to the over zealous and really very useless law they've just created.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931614</id>
	<title>Re:never under estimate the stupidity of the law</title>
	<author>consonant</author>
	<datestamp>1264681320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>XKCD is done for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>XKCD is done for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XKCD is done for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932552</id>
	<title>So any one with a copy of the movie has child porn</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1264690440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So any one with a copy of the movie has child porn?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So any one with a copy of the movie has child porn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So any one with a copy of the movie has child porn?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930794</id>
	<title>Re:Uh oh, he's a fatty. We'd better put him away.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264671000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am thinking about it right now, just to spite the law.</p><p>It is not exactly a pleasant thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am thinking about it right now , just to spite the law.It is not exactly a pleasant thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am thinking about it right now, just to spite the law.It is not exactly a pleasant thought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932230</id>
	<title>Ah - all just about making more money!</title>
	<author>no-body</author>
	<datestamp>1264688340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thought police in action. This is just a dry run.</p><p>Soon there is a device which will sense thought patterns and everyone with a wet dream will go to jail.<br>Since the prisons can't hold all the convicts private companies will pick up the slack and - $$$$$!</p><p>Uups!  That was Australia - I thought about the US business model - my fault...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thought police in action .
This is just a dry run.Soon there is a device which will sense thought patterns and everyone with a wet dream will go to jail.Since the prisons ca n't hold all the convicts private companies will pick up the slack and - $ $ $ $ $ ! Uups !
That was Australia - I thought about the US business model - my fault.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thought police in action.
This is just a dry run.Soon there is a device which will sense thought patterns and everyone with a wet dream will go to jail.Since the prisons can't hold all the convicts private companies will pick up the slack and - $$$$$!Uups!
That was Australia - I thought about the US business model - my fault...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931796</id>
	<title>Dilution of "Sex Offender" status</title>
	<author>brunes69</author>
	<datestamp>1264684260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The law should really think twice about what it is doing, because it is essentially diluting what it means to be a sex offender.</p><p>As recent as 10 years ago, when the state said someone was a convicted sex offender, I immediately assumed they had raped a child or adult, or something else simmilar, and thus feared and was disgusted by them. Nowadays? I basically have to go through all this research to figure out if they actually did anything bad! How old were they/ how old was the other person involve,d if any? Was anyone harmed? etc etc.</p><p>At this rate there will be so many sex offenders gone through the system in 10 years that it will be viewed as a case of teenage shoplifting is! I don't see how that is good for anyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The law should really think twice about what it is doing , because it is essentially diluting what it means to be a sex offender.As recent as 10 years ago , when the state said someone was a convicted sex offender , I immediately assumed they had raped a child or adult , or something else simmilar , and thus feared and was disgusted by them .
Nowadays ? I basically have to go through all this research to figure out if they actually did anything bad !
How old were they/ how old was the other person involve,d if any ?
Was anyone harmed ?
etc etc.At this rate there will be so many sex offenders gone through the system in 10 years that it will be viewed as a case of teenage shoplifting is !
I do n't see how that is good for anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The law should really think twice about what it is doing, because it is essentially diluting what it means to be a sex offender.As recent as 10 years ago, when the state said someone was a convicted sex offender, I immediately assumed they had raped a child or adult, or something else simmilar, and thus feared and was disgusted by them.
Nowadays? I basically have to go through all this research to figure out if they actually did anything bad!
How old were they/ how old was the other person involve,d if any?
Was anyone harmed?
etc etc.At this rate there will be so many sex offenders gone through the system in 10 years that it will be viewed as a case of teenage shoplifting is!
I don't see how that is good for anyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30934574</id>
	<title>Re:Cartoon porn is still porn</title>
	<author>precariousgray</author>
	<datestamp>1264698780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've always thought it would be interesting for a young person to produce pornography of themself, and then attempt to sell it when they are over the age of 18.  As much as I'd love to see that one go to court, I'm sure we all know how it would end.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always thought it would be interesting for a young person to produce pornography of themself , and then attempt to sell it when they are over the age of 18 .
As much as I 'd love to see that one go to court , I 'm sure we all know how it would end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always thought it would be interesting for a young person to produce pornography of themself, and then attempt to sell it when they are over the age of 18.
As much as I'd love to see that one go to court, I'm sure we all know how it would end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930470</id>
	<title>Re:Uh oh, he's a fatty. We'd better put him away.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264710480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, if you dont look tough on child porn you are a pedophile.<br>So you did the right thing posting that as AC, dont ever bring that up again.<br>Next time i will be in the moralfags mob, throwing stone at you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , if you dont look tough on child porn you are a pedophile.So you did the right thing posting that as AC , dont ever bring that up again.Next time i will be in the moralfags mob , throwing stone at you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, if you dont look tough on child porn you are a pedophile.So you did the right thing posting that as AC, dont ever bring that up again.Next time i will be in the moralfags mob, throwing stone at you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30936630</id>
	<title>ACLU</title>
	<author>BrookHarty</author>
	<datestamp>1264704480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is the ACLU's comment on this case? I'd like to know their stand on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the ACLU 's comment on this case ?
I 'd like to know their stand on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the ACLU's comment on this case?
I'd like to know their stand on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930310</id>
	<title>Re:Cartoon porn is still porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264622160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA<blockquote><div><p>The Leichhardt resident was convicted of possessing child exploitation material in 2003 after 59 sexual images of actual youngsters were found on his computer. He received two years probation with no conviction recorded.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
This was his second offense but something doesn't really make sense with all of this.  If these laws are put in place to protect then why is he not 'dangerous' enough to be taken off of the streets?  This is starting to sound like parking or speeding tickets where they just do it to make a point but not really make a difference.  It's not like I personally view 'cartoon porn' as something that serious although it is fucked up to get off of anything related to kids but obviously the courts see it the same way since their ruling was not much more than a slap on the wrist.  So either the first conviction was too much or the system is all wrong becuase how can you say how much of a sex offender someone is?  I would either think you are a threat to society or you are not how can you be kind of a sex offender?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFAThe Leichhardt resident was convicted of possessing child exploitation material in 2003 after 59 sexual images of actual youngsters were found on his computer .
He received two years probation with no conviction recorded .
This was his second offense but something does n't really make sense with all of this .
If these laws are put in place to protect then why is he not 'dangerous ' enough to be taken off of the streets ?
This is starting to sound like parking or speeding tickets where they just do it to make a point but not really make a difference .
It 's not like I personally view 'cartoon porn ' as something that serious although it is fucked up to get off of anything related to kids but obviously the courts see it the same way since their ruling was not much more than a slap on the wrist .
So either the first conviction was too much or the system is all wrong becuase how can you say how much of a sex offender someone is ?
I would either think you are a threat to society or you are not how can you be kind of a sex offender ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFAThe Leichhardt resident was convicted of possessing child exploitation material in 2003 after 59 sexual images of actual youngsters were found on his computer.
He received two years probation with no conviction recorded.
This was his second offense but something doesn't really make sense with all of this.
If these laws are put in place to protect then why is he not 'dangerous' enough to be taken off of the streets?
This is starting to sound like parking or speeding tickets where they just do it to make a point but not really make a difference.
It's not like I personally view 'cartoon porn' as something that serious although it is fucked up to get off of anything related to kids but obviously the courts see it the same way since their ruling was not much more than a slap on the wrist.
So either the first conviction was too much or the system is all wrong becuase how can you say how much of a sex offender someone is?
I would either think you are a threat to society or you are not how can you be kind of a sex offender?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931952</id>
	<title>Zombies!</title>
	<author>Sobrique</author>
	<datestamp>1264686240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's ok. They're actually 1000 year old zombies, so it's not CP at all.
<br> Seriously. What the hell? The anti-pedophilia laws are there to protect children from harm, particularly from people in a position of trust or influence. That's eminently reasonable.
<br>
How does a cartoon - however tasteless - have anything to do with that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's ok. They 're actually 1000 year old zombies , so it 's not CP at all .
Seriously. What the hell ?
The anti-pedophilia laws are there to protect children from harm , particularly from people in a position of trust or influence .
That 's eminently reasonable .
How does a cartoon - however tasteless - have anything to do with that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's ok. They're actually 1000 year old zombies, so it's not CP at all.
Seriously. What the hell?
The anti-pedophilia laws are there to protect children from harm, particularly from people in a position of trust or influence.
That's eminently reasonable.
How does a cartoon - however tasteless - have anything to do with that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931112</id>
	<title>Stay classy, Australia.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264674840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So essentially, they wanted to throw the book at him and this was all they could find, and it happened to artificially fit the definition of a law that is really only randomly enforced.  The guy may be a perv, but he did his time and this is no reason to put him away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So essentially , they wanted to throw the book at him and this was all they could find , and it happened to artificially fit the definition of a law that is really only randomly enforced .
The guy may be a perv , but he did his time and this is no reason to put him away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So essentially, they wanted to throw the book at him and this was all they could find, and it happened to artificially fit the definition of a law that is really only randomly enforced.
The guy may be a perv, but he did his time and this is no reason to put him away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930334</id>
	<title>Idiot.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264622340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Officers discovered the computer would no longer turn on but a year later police forensic experts recovered 64 images of cartoon child exploitation material in the machine&rsquo;s recycle bin.</p></div></blockquote><p>So he threw the pictures in the recycle bin then blew the power supply. Very smart.</p><p>Then again, that doesn't speak very well of the police forensic experts who spent a year trying to connect the hard drive to another computer to read it. Or maybe they just couldn't find the RECYCLED folder. I'm not surprised though, government efficiency and all that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Officers discovered the computer would no longer turn on but a year later police forensic experts recovered 64 images of cartoon child exploitation material in the machine    s recycle bin.So he threw the pictures in the recycle bin then blew the power supply .
Very smart.Then again , that does n't speak very well of the police forensic experts who spent a year trying to connect the hard drive to another computer to read it .
Or maybe they just could n't find the RECYCLED folder .
I 'm not surprised though , government efficiency and all that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Officers discovered the computer would no longer turn on but a year later police forensic experts recovered 64 images of cartoon child exploitation material in the machine’s recycle bin.So he threw the pictures in the recycle bin then blew the power supply.
Very smart.Then again, that doesn't speak very well of the police forensic experts who spent a year trying to connect the hard drive to another computer to read it.
Or maybe they just couldn't find the RECYCLED folder.
I'm not surprised though, government efficiency and all that.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930140</id>
	<title>Simpsons Already Did It!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264619940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Marge clearly showed her tits, please move on to other types of porn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Marge clearly showed her tits , please move on to other types of porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Marge clearly showed her tits, please move on to other types of porn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30943066</id>
	<title>What is the statute of limitations on this?</title>
	<author>Cunk</author>
	<datestamp>1264679940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was horribly scarred by a guy back in the 80's when he showed me a fax of Linus using his blanket to snap Lucy's clothes off and then fucking her.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was horribly scarred by a guy back in the 80 's when he showed me a fax of Linus using his blanket to snap Lucy 's clothes off and then fucking her .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was horribly scarred by a guy back in the 80's when he showed me a fax of Linus using his blanket to snap Lucy's clothes off and then fucking her.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931318</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity.</title>
	<author>the3stars</author>
	<datestamp>1264677540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd rather have a percentage of the 'pedophilicly inclined' spending their time acquiring pictures of nude cartoon characters than pictures of children. Further, in relation to the article, the way to get rid of undesirable elements of our ever changing society is not to punish the 'customer' but the 'distributor'. File sharing makes the line between the two difficult to see, but rather than putting people behind bars for the crime of clicking, why not focus more on removing the source? Under the current laws in many western nations, glancing at a computer screen displaying questionable photos of children is dangerously close to breaking the law. But there is a mile wide gap between the person who clicks a link and the person who subjects their own child to such inhumane treatment. I would suspect that the average person in a western nation sees hundreds if not thousands of simulated murders on television and in the movies, and murder is arguably a more heinous crime than active sexual deviancy targeting children. Cartoons are just as unreal as movies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about the rest of you , but I 'd rather have a percentage of the 'pedophilicly inclined ' spending their time acquiring pictures of nude cartoon characters than pictures of children .
Further , in relation to the article , the way to get rid of undesirable elements of our ever changing society is not to punish the 'customer ' but the 'distributor' .
File sharing makes the line between the two difficult to see , but rather than putting people behind bars for the crime of clicking , why not focus more on removing the source ?
Under the current laws in many western nations , glancing at a computer screen displaying questionable photos of children is dangerously close to breaking the law .
But there is a mile wide gap between the person who clicks a link and the person who subjects their own child to such inhumane treatment .
I would suspect that the average person in a western nation sees hundreds if not thousands of simulated murders on television and in the movies , and murder is arguably a more heinous crime than active sexual deviancy targeting children .
Cartoons are just as unreal as movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd rather have a percentage of the 'pedophilicly inclined' spending their time acquiring pictures of nude cartoon characters than pictures of children.
Further, in relation to the article, the way to get rid of undesirable elements of our ever changing society is not to punish the 'customer' but the 'distributor'.
File sharing makes the line between the two difficult to see, but rather than putting people behind bars for the crime of clicking, why not focus more on removing the source?
Under the current laws in many western nations, glancing at a computer screen displaying questionable photos of children is dangerously close to breaking the law.
But there is a mile wide gap between the person who clicks a link and the person who subjects their own child to such inhumane treatment.
I would suspect that the average person in a western nation sees hundreds if not thousands of simulated murders on television and in the movies, and murder is arguably a more heinous crime than active sexual deviancy targeting children.
Cartoons are just as unreal as movies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931892</id>
	<title>Re:A fine line has been drawn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264685520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the problems in society is the huge disconnect between pedophilia and child porn. Pedophilia is an attraction to prepubescents, you can be 14 years old and be a pedophile (and yes this has happened), but if you have sex with 99 women over 18, and one 10 year old child, it doesn't make you a pedophile. Child Porn on the other hand is an image of a person under the age of 18 years or appears to be under 18 (So they could be 25 dressed up in a schoolgirl uniform for example), real or imaginary (eg the Simpsons Porn), clothed or not.</p><p>So people assume if someone gets done for the possession of child porn that they are a pedophile when in fact they may not have any images of prepubescent children at all. Even a photo of a baby in a bathtub can be considered to be child porn if some nut comes along and says that it can be construed to be sexually suggestive to a pedophile. As someone else said, two 17 year old took photos of each other having sex and got done for child porn and yet the sexual age of consent for them was 16.</p><p>There are people out there who do want the sexual age of consent to be increased, and also the child porn age to be increased to 21.</p><p>So next time you see a report of someone being convicted of possessing child porn, all the images may in fact be people who are over 18 when the images were taken, but they may look like they are under 18.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the problems in society is the huge disconnect between pedophilia and child porn .
Pedophilia is an attraction to prepubescents , you can be 14 years old and be a pedophile ( and yes this has happened ) , but if you have sex with 99 women over 18 , and one 10 year old child , it does n't make you a pedophile .
Child Porn on the other hand is an image of a person under the age of 18 years or appears to be under 18 ( So they could be 25 dressed up in a schoolgirl uniform for example ) , real or imaginary ( eg the Simpsons Porn ) , clothed or not.So people assume if someone gets done for the possession of child porn that they are a pedophile when in fact they may not have any images of prepubescent children at all .
Even a photo of a baby in a bathtub can be considered to be child porn if some nut comes along and says that it can be construed to be sexually suggestive to a pedophile .
As someone else said , two 17 year old took photos of each other having sex and got done for child porn and yet the sexual age of consent for them was 16.There are people out there who do want the sexual age of consent to be increased , and also the child porn age to be increased to 21.So next time you see a report of someone being convicted of possessing child porn , all the images may in fact be people who are over 18 when the images were taken , but they may look like they are under 18 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the problems in society is the huge disconnect between pedophilia and child porn.
Pedophilia is an attraction to prepubescents, you can be 14 years old and be a pedophile (and yes this has happened), but if you have sex with 99 women over 18, and one 10 year old child, it doesn't make you a pedophile.
Child Porn on the other hand is an image of a person under the age of 18 years or appears to be under 18 (So they could be 25 dressed up in a schoolgirl uniform for example), real or imaginary (eg the Simpsons Porn), clothed or not.So people assume if someone gets done for the possession of child porn that they are a pedophile when in fact they may not have any images of prepubescent children at all.
Even a photo of a baby in a bathtub can be considered to be child porn if some nut comes along and says that it can be construed to be sexually suggestive to a pedophile.
As someone else said, two 17 year old took photos of each other having sex and got done for child porn and yet the sexual age of consent for them was 16.There are people out there who do want the sexual age of consent to be increased, and also the child porn age to be increased to 21.So next time you see a report of someone being convicted of possessing child porn, all the images may in fact be people who are over 18 when the images were taken, but they may look like they are under 18.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30935108</id>
	<title>Ridiculous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264700280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me make it perfectly clear that in no way do I advocate child porn or identify with anyone sexually attracted to kids, however I do advocate common sense. From his previous history, this guy clearly has serious issues, however he's not half as screwed up as the judge.</p><p>The internet is rife with tasteless humour and on occasion I get forwarded emails containing stupid crap like this from perfectly normal friends who I'm pretty certain aren't paedophiles. It may be tasteless and stupid, but its whole intention is to be humour.</p><p>Also, porn itself is not illegal. The whole point of banning child porn specifically is to rightly halt a business that is founded on abuse of real children. However in the case of cartoons, where is the harm to anyone? (except maybe the rights-holder of the original character - perhaps this is what this case is really all about).</p><p>Even assuming this guy is covering up the fact that he's actually using these cartoons for wierd sexual purposes (which has not been proved) I'd rather paedophiles were allowed to use cartoons for whatever it is they do in place of real child porn. The reality is that no law alone will change the fact that they are actually attracted to kids, so lets accept that and give them psychiatric help and a legal alternative, just like junkies get methodone. This ruling actually sends the wrong message to pedophiles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me make it perfectly clear that in no way do I advocate child porn or identify with anyone sexually attracted to kids , however I do advocate common sense .
From his previous history , this guy clearly has serious issues , however he 's not half as screwed up as the judge.The internet is rife with tasteless humour and on occasion I get forwarded emails containing stupid crap like this from perfectly normal friends who I 'm pretty certain are n't paedophiles .
It may be tasteless and stupid , but its whole intention is to be humour.Also , porn itself is not illegal .
The whole point of banning child porn specifically is to rightly halt a business that is founded on abuse of real children .
However in the case of cartoons , where is the harm to anyone ?
( except maybe the rights-holder of the original character - perhaps this is what this case is really all about ) .Even assuming this guy is covering up the fact that he 's actually using these cartoons for wierd sexual purposes ( which has not been proved ) I 'd rather paedophiles were allowed to use cartoons for whatever it is they do in place of real child porn .
The reality is that no law alone will change the fact that they are actually attracted to kids , so lets accept that and give them psychiatric help and a legal alternative , just like junkies get methodone .
This ruling actually sends the wrong message to pedophiles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me make it perfectly clear that in no way do I advocate child porn or identify with anyone sexually attracted to kids, however I do advocate common sense.
From his previous history, this guy clearly has serious issues, however he's not half as screwed up as the judge.The internet is rife with tasteless humour and on occasion I get forwarded emails containing stupid crap like this from perfectly normal friends who I'm pretty certain aren't paedophiles.
It may be tasteless and stupid, but its whole intention is to be humour.Also, porn itself is not illegal.
The whole point of banning child porn specifically is to rightly halt a business that is founded on abuse of real children.
However in the case of cartoons, where is the harm to anyone?
(except maybe the rights-holder of the original character - perhaps this is what this case is really all about).Even assuming this guy is covering up the fact that he's actually using these cartoons for wierd sexual purposes (which has not been proved) I'd rather paedophiles were allowed to use cartoons for whatever it is they do in place of real child porn.
The reality is that no law alone will change the fact that they are actually attracted to kids, so lets accept that and give them psychiatric help and a legal alternative, just like junkies get methodone.
This ruling actually sends the wrong message to pedophiles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30936250</id>
	<title>Re:Bart's Unit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264703280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It wasn't his "talent". He was flipping off the audience with his hand oriented downward in the appropriate location to cover his "talent".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was n't his " talent " .
He was flipping off the audience with his hand oriented downward in the appropriate location to cover his " talent " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wasn't his "talent".
He was flipping off the audience with his hand oriented downward in the appropriate location to cover his "talent".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931076</id>
	<title>Re:Bart's Unit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264674600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess if I'm ever questioned about having seen child porn I should respond "no comment". The law will screw you if you say no. The law will screw you if you say yes. The law will screw you if you say nothing. The law will screw you if you say "no comment". It doesn't matter what you say. We're just all screwed unless we're not ask anything at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess if I 'm ever questioned about having seen child porn I should respond " no comment " .
The law will screw you if you say no .
The law will screw you if you say yes .
The law will screw you if you say nothing .
The law will screw you if you say " no comment " .
It does n't matter what you say .
We 're just all screwed unless we 're not ask anything at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess if I'm ever questioned about having seen child porn I should respond "no comment".
The law will screw you if you say no.
The law will screw you if you say yes.
The law will screw you if you say nothing.
The law will screw you if you say "no comment".
It doesn't matter what you say.
We're just all screwed unless we're not ask anything at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930444</id>
	<title>Re:Bad write up.</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1264710060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it shouldn't make two shits worth of difference! Look, I personally think that we shouldn't persecute for mere possession of child porn (just purchase and obviously creation), but I can see the rationale. This makes no sense. It doesn't, or rather shouldn't matter if he enjoyed it or not - the fact of the matter is that <i>cartoon pornography can not hurt children</i>. There's a strong case that it lessens the demand for CP, but this also isn't the issue.</p><p>Point being that the response to "he had Simpsons porn on his computer" is "that's a little fucked up... weird guy" or some other variation of "whatever", not "let's throw him in jail".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it should n't make two shits worth of difference !
Look , I personally think that we should n't persecute for mere possession of child porn ( just purchase and obviously creation ) , but I can see the rationale .
This makes no sense .
It does n't , or rather should n't matter if he enjoyed it or not - the fact of the matter is that cartoon pornography can not hurt children .
There 's a strong case that it lessens the demand for CP , but this also is n't the issue.Point being that the response to " he had Simpsons porn on his computer " is " that 's a little fucked up... weird guy " or some other variation of " whatever " , not " let 's throw him in jail " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it shouldn't make two shits worth of difference!
Look, I personally think that we shouldn't persecute for mere possession of child porn (just purchase and obviously creation), but I can see the rationale.
This makes no sense.
It doesn't, or rather shouldn't matter if he enjoyed it or not - the fact of the matter is that cartoon pornography can not hurt children.
There's a strong case that it lessens the demand for CP, but this also isn't the issue.Point being that the response to "he had Simpsons porn on his computer" is "that's a little fucked up... weird guy" or some other variation of "whatever", not "let's throw him in jail".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932888</id>
	<title>Re:What happened to Mangas</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1264692600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>(Note that I'm using terms as used in the west; I'm aware that the Japanese don't use "hentai" like we do.)<br>
<br>
Mangas are as much kiddy porn as comics in general are. The term "manga" describes Japanese-style comics; it doesn't say anything about the content. Even "hentai" doesn't qualify; that's just Japanese comic porn. Not any more child porn than all porn is. "Lolicon" and "shotacon" are the terms you're looking for; the former is an abbreviation of "lolita complex" and the latter is a portmanteau of the former and a popular first name for boys. Those two do explicitly describe child porn.<br>
<br>
In short:<br>
"Manga" describes all Japanese-style comics. Examples would be Dragonball or Sailor Moon.<br>
"Hentai" describes all Japanese-style porn comics. Examples would be, er, I can't think of any non-animated ones at the moment, so I'll use one of those. Urotsukidoji comes to mind.<br>
"(Loli|Shota)con" is the child porn stuff. I sure as hell won't research particular titles for you.<br>
<br>
In shorter: Nobody is going to arrest you for reading The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya and those late-night ads asking you to subscribe to their service so "horny mangas can come to your mobile" can't distinguish between fictional characters and print media.</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Note that I 'm using terms as used in the west ; I 'm aware that the Japanese do n't use " hentai " like we do .
) Mangas are as much kiddy porn as comics in general are .
The term " manga " describes Japanese-style comics ; it does n't say anything about the content .
Even " hentai " does n't qualify ; that 's just Japanese comic porn .
Not any more child porn than all porn is .
" Lolicon " and " shotacon " are the terms you 're looking for ; the former is an abbreviation of " lolita complex " and the latter is a portmanteau of the former and a popular first name for boys .
Those two do explicitly describe child porn .
In short : " Manga " describes all Japanese-style comics .
Examples would be Dragonball or Sailor Moon .
" Hentai " describes all Japanese-style porn comics .
Examples would be , er , I ca n't think of any non-animated ones at the moment , so I 'll use one of those .
Urotsukidoji comes to mind .
" ( Loli | Shota ) con " is the child porn stuff .
I sure as hell wo n't research particular titles for you .
In shorter : Nobody is going to arrest you for reading The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya and those late-night ads asking you to subscribe to their service so " horny mangas can come to your mobile " ca n't distinguish between fictional characters and print media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Note that I'm using terms as used in the west; I'm aware that the Japanese don't use "hentai" like we do.
)

Mangas are as much kiddy porn as comics in general are.
The term "manga" describes Japanese-style comics; it doesn't say anything about the content.
Even "hentai" doesn't qualify; that's just Japanese comic porn.
Not any more child porn than all porn is.
"Lolicon" and "shotacon" are the terms you're looking for; the former is an abbreviation of "lolita complex" and the latter is a portmanteau of the former and a popular first name for boys.
Those two do explicitly describe child porn.
In short:
"Manga" describes all Japanese-style comics.
Examples would be Dragonball or Sailor Moon.
"Hentai" describes all Japanese-style porn comics.
Examples would be, er, I can't think of any non-animated ones at the moment, so I'll use one of those.
Urotsukidoji comes to mind.
"(Loli|Shota)con" is the child porn stuff.
I sure as hell won't research particular titles for you.
In shorter: Nobody is going to arrest you for reading The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya and those late-night ads asking you to subscribe to their service so "horny mangas can come to your mobile" can't distinguish between fictional characters and print media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930218</id>
	<title>Aren't child pornography for protecting children?</title>
	<author>lbigbadbob</author>
	<datestamp>1264621020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought the point of harsh laws against child pornography were meant to prevent the exploitation of children.  Child cartoon characters are not actual people and thus were not actually exploited.

Clearly he should have been arrested for copyright infringement instead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the point of harsh laws against child pornography were meant to prevent the exploitation of children .
Child cartoon characters are not actual people and thus were not actually exploited .
Clearly he should have been arrested for copyright infringement instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the point of harsh laws against child pornography were meant to prevent the exploitation of children.
Child cartoon characters are not actual people and thus were not actually exploited.
Clearly he should have been arrested for copyright infringement instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30953644</id>
	<title>Fucking ridiculous.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264797120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fucking ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fucking ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fucking ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30957674</id>
	<title>I think there is more to this than can be said.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264771920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think there is more to this story than what's being told. local Police probably know more than they can say about this guy in a court of law.<br>Remember this fellow uploaded real child porn and was charged for doing so. This guy needs to get his head read glad he does not live near me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there is more to this story than what 's being told .
local Police probably know more than they can say about this guy in a court of law.Remember this fellow uploaded real child porn and was charged for doing so .
This guy needs to get his head read glad he does not live near me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there is more to this story than what's being told.
local Police probably know more than they can say about this guy in a court of law.Remember this fellow uploaded real child porn and was charged for doing so.
This guy needs to get his head read glad he does not live near me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931414</id>
	<title>ascii porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264678500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe it's drawn too poorly, but this is an actual depiction of Bart and Lisa engaging in <b>taboo acts of a sexual nature!</b> <br> <br>
&gt;+o <br>
&gt;+o <br> <br>the sad part is that I am posting anonymously because.... what if?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's drawn too poorly , but this is an actual depiction of Bart and Lisa engaging in taboo acts of a sexual nature !
&gt; + o &gt; + o the sad part is that I am posting anonymously because.... what if ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's drawn too poorly, but this is an actual depiction of Bart and Lisa engaging in taboo acts of a sexual nature!
&gt;+o 
&gt;+o  the sad part is that I am posting anonymously because.... what if?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930366</id>
	<title>never under estimate the stupidity of the law</title>
	<author>cl191</author>
	<datestamp>1264709220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess I need to draw some clothes on my stick figure man just to be safe from now on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I need to draw some clothes on my stick figure man just to be safe from now on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I need to draw some clothes on my stick figure man just to be safe from now on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931246</id>
	<title>Re:Aren't child pornography for protecting childre</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264676760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Clearly he should have been arrested for copyright infringement instead.</i> </p><p>That might have been harder to prove if it were in the US.</p><p>Some years back, a guy used Barbie and Ken dolls (and their accessories) to make and photograph tableaux of Ken bending Barbie over the hood of her convertible and buttfucking her, as well as many other sexual scenes -- Barbie blowing Ken off, etc.</p><p>It was deemed to be satire and the guy was acquitted of any IP violations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly he should have been arrested for copyright infringement instead .
That might have been harder to prove if it were in the US.Some years back , a guy used Barbie and Ken dolls ( and their accessories ) to make and photograph tableaux of Ken bending Barbie over the hood of her convertible and buttfucking her , as well as many other sexual scenes -- Barbie blowing Ken off , etc.It was deemed to be satire and the guy was acquitted of any IP violations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly he should have been arrested for copyright infringement instead.
That might have been harder to prove if it were in the US.Some years back, a guy used Barbie and Ken dolls (and their accessories) to make and photograph tableaux of Ken bending Barbie over the hood of her convertible and buttfucking her, as well as many other sexual scenes -- Barbie blowing Ken off, etc.It was deemed to be satire and the guy was acquitted of any IP violations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933638</id>
	<title>Re:Bad write up.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264696080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You say this now but watch what you wish for our robotic overlords may very well decided that nude robots are illegal but naked rabbits are not.</p><p>All kidding aside I think anyone who harms a child, physcially or mentally, should pay the ultimate price. I also think  that if we don't use common sense we are going to slide down the slope.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_they\_came...</p><p>In Germany they first came for the Communists,<br>and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.</p><p>Then they came for the Jews,<br>and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.</p><p>Then they came for the trade unionists,<br>and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.</p><p>Then they came for the Catholics,<br>and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.</p><p>Then they came for me &mdash;<br>and by that time no one was left to speak up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You say this now but watch what you wish for our robotic overlords may very well decided that nude robots are illegal but naked rabbits are not.All kidding aside I think anyone who harms a child , physcially or mentally , should pay the ultimate price .
I also think that if we do n't use common sense we are going to slide down the slope.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First \ _they \ _came...In Germany they first came for the Communists,and I did n't speak up because I was n't a Communist.Then they came for the Jews,and I did n't speak up because I was n't a Jew.Then they came for the trade unionists,and I did n't speak up because I was n't a trade unionist.Then they came for the Catholics,and I did n't speak up because I was a Protestant.Then they came for me    and by that time no one was left to speak up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You say this now but watch what you wish for our robotic overlords may very well decided that nude robots are illegal but naked rabbits are not.All kidding aside I think anyone who harms a child, physcially or mentally, should pay the ultimate price.
I also think  that if we don't use common sense we are going to slide down the slope.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_they\_came...In Germany they first came for the Communists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.Then they came for the Jews,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.Then they came for the trade unionists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.Then they came for the Catholics,and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.Then they came for me —and by that time no one was left to speak up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930228</id>
	<title>Re:Bad write up.</title>
	<author>pipedwho</author>
	<datestamp>1264621200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF? Two things:</p><p>1. The concept of making child pornography illegal has nothing to do with whether or not someone was 'sexually titillated'. It is ostensibly there to prevent exploitation of children, which happens during the creation of the child porn.</p><p>2. The argument that his prior conviction is grounds for a 'severe response to cartoon images' is ridiculous. As the cartoon images never required an illegal act to create them in the first place, the only thing making them illegal is the ludicrous ruling by the supreme court judge that made 'cartoon child porn' the equivalent of real porn.</p><p>It's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn. But, the 'cartoon porn' court ruling should be thrown out, and the supreme court judge(s) should be removed from the bench.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF ?
Two things : 1 .
The concept of making child pornography illegal has nothing to do with whether or not someone was 'sexually titillated' .
It is ostensibly there to prevent exploitation of children , which happens during the creation of the child porn.2 .
The argument that his prior conviction is grounds for a 'severe response to cartoon images ' is ridiculous .
As the cartoon images never required an illegal act to create them in the first place , the only thing making them illegal is the ludicrous ruling by the supreme court judge that made 'cartoon child porn ' the equivalent of real porn.It 's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn .
But , the 'cartoon porn ' court ruling should be thrown out , and the supreme court judge ( s ) should be removed from the bench .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF?
Two things:1.
The concept of making child pornography illegal has nothing to do with whether or not someone was 'sexually titillated'.
It is ostensibly there to prevent exploitation of children, which happens during the creation of the child porn.2.
The argument that his prior conviction is grounds for a 'severe response to cartoon images' is ridiculous.
As the cartoon images never required an illegal act to create them in the first place, the only thing making them illegal is the ludicrous ruling by the supreme court judge that made 'cartoon child porn' the equivalent of real porn.It's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn.
But, the 'cartoon porn' court ruling should be thrown out, and the supreme court judge(s) should be removed from the bench.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930170</id>
	<title>Re:Cartoon porn is still porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264620360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>depicting sexual acts with people under the age of 18 years.</p></div><p>Technically, even Maggie is over 18 now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>depicting sexual acts with people under the age of 18 years.Technically , even Maggie is over 18 now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>depicting sexual acts with people under the age of 18 years.Technically, even Maggie is over 18 now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931778</id>
	<title>Prohibit pictures of people killing</title>
	<author>AttilaSz</author>
	<datestamp>1264683960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So why don't they make it illegal to possess a picturing of any crime being committed, even if the portrayal is completely fictional? Like, I dunno, people beating up, or killing other people. That should be completely eradicated from movies now, don't you think?</p><p>Sheesh...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why do n't they make it illegal to possess a picturing of any crime being committed , even if the portrayal is completely fictional ?
Like , I dunno , people beating up , or killing other people .
That should be completely eradicated from movies now , do n't you think ? Sheesh.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why don't they make it illegal to possess a picturing of any crime being committed, even if the portrayal is completely fictional?
Like, I dunno, people beating up, or killing other people.
That should be completely eradicated from movies now, don't you think?Sheesh...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930522</id>
	<title>Re:Thought Crime Clich&#233;</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264711020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have, do, and will side with pedophiles in cases such as this. And publicly too, not just on the internet. I'm much happier having him wank to cartoons than children, and happier to have him wank to child porn than fucking a kid.</p><p>My personal opinion is that the creation of child pornography is immoral and heinous. Children truly don't know what they're getting themselves into. That's why the creation or purchase of CP should be met with very strict punishments.</p><p>But mere downloading? I doubt you'll convince anyone that it should be legal. Legalizing something (that is, repealing the law against it) says something more than just ignoring it, since it's an active process. Maybe a better (political) tactic is to not enforce it.</p><p>Now children don't know what they're doing, but teens sure do. I'd say 15 and up - after that point, you are as responsible about sex as you ever will be. Or, more accurately, if you mature further at all it'll definitely be after 18. I can support this with personal evidence from growing up, and collaboratory evidence from friends.</p><p>I defy anyone to tell me that a 15-16 year old has less of an ability to consent to sex than an 18-year-old on their birthday. Biologically, 16 is about the right time - so is it a surprise that us males are turned on by young-to-mid teens and up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have , do , and will side with pedophiles in cases such as this .
And publicly too , not just on the internet .
I 'm much happier having him wank to cartoons than children , and happier to have him wank to child porn than fucking a kid.My personal opinion is that the creation of child pornography is immoral and heinous .
Children truly do n't know what they 're getting themselves into .
That 's why the creation or purchase of CP should be met with very strict punishments.But mere downloading ?
I doubt you 'll convince anyone that it should be legal .
Legalizing something ( that is , repealing the law against it ) says something more than just ignoring it , since it 's an active process .
Maybe a better ( political ) tactic is to not enforce it.Now children do n't know what they 're doing , but teens sure do .
I 'd say 15 and up - after that point , you are as responsible about sex as you ever will be .
Or , more accurately , if you mature further at all it 'll definitely be after 18 .
I can support this with personal evidence from growing up , and collaboratory evidence from friends.I defy anyone to tell me that a 15-16 year old has less of an ability to consent to sex than an 18-year-old on their birthday .
Biologically , 16 is about the right time - so is it a surprise that us males are turned on by young-to-mid teens and up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have, do, and will side with pedophiles in cases such as this.
And publicly too, not just on the internet.
I'm much happier having him wank to cartoons than children, and happier to have him wank to child porn than fucking a kid.My personal opinion is that the creation of child pornography is immoral and heinous.
Children truly don't know what they're getting themselves into.
That's why the creation or purchase of CP should be met with very strict punishments.But mere downloading?
I doubt you'll convince anyone that it should be legal.
Legalizing something (that is, repealing the law against it) says something more than just ignoring it, since it's an active process.
Maybe a better (political) tactic is to not enforce it.Now children don't know what they're doing, but teens sure do.
I'd say 15 and up - after that point, you are as responsible about sex as you ever will be.
Or, more accurately, if you mature further at all it'll definitely be after 18.
I can support this with personal evidence from growing up, and collaboratory evidence from friends.I defy anyone to tell me that a 15-16 year old has less of an ability to consent to sex than an 18-year-old on their birthday.
Biologically, 16 is about the right time - so is it a surprise that us males are turned on by young-to-mid teens and up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933084</id>
	<title>Re:Cartoon porn is still porn</title>
	<author>blueg3</author>
	<datestamp>1264693560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easy: because the idea of going to prison for a small collection of cartoon child porn is ridiculous enough that the prosecutor offered him a good deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy : because the idea of going to prison for a small collection of cartoon child porn is ridiculous enough that the prosecutor offered him a good deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy: because the idea of going to prison for a small collection of cartoon child porn is ridiculous enough that the prosecutor offered him a good deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930536</id>
	<title>Re:Cartoon porn is still porn</title>
	<author>f0rk</author>
	<datestamp>1264711140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, The Simpsons is ~21 years old. That makes the kids at least 30 years old.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , The Simpsons is ~ 21 years old .
That makes the kids at least 30 years old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, The Simpsons is ~21 years old.
That makes the kids at least 30 years old.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932568</id>
	<title>convict me then 4 whats in my garage from school</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264690500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About 17 years ago when I was in early highschool, about 13-14 years old, the guys in my class had one of these simpsons port cartoons (a single image of lisa simpson sucking off bart simpson, IIRC, with the baby watching on with a dummy in its mouth) on a floppy disk drive, along with other cartoon porn and a slideshow app. A couple of times we viewed it on the computer (a 386 or something)  and then all made a copy. I've probably still got that fucking floppy disk drive in my garage with all my other shit that I kept from school.   By the ridiculous standards of these anti cartoon crusaders, I (and half the other guys from my yr-8 class) could be just as easily be convicted as a sex offender as the poor sap from this story was.</p><p>it is a cartoon.<br>a colored-in scribble.</p><p>the absolute  most that should be done in cases like this is to charge someone of indecent or lewd behaviour or something if they go round showing such a picture to children.<br>Where is the need to prosecute people, criminalise them, and place a sex-offender stigma on them for the rest of their life because they looked at or had a bloody cartoon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About 17 years ago when I was in early highschool , about 13-14 years old , the guys in my class had one of these simpsons port cartoons ( a single image of lisa simpson sucking off bart simpson , IIRC , with the baby watching on with a dummy in its mouth ) on a floppy disk drive , along with other cartoon porn and a slideshow app .
A couple of times we viewed it on the computer ( a 386 or something ) and then all made a copy .
I 've probably still got that fucking floppy disk drive in my garage with all my other shit that I kept from school .
By the ridiculous standards of these anti cartoon crusaders , I ( and half the other guys from my yr-8 class ) could be just as easily be convicted as a sex offender as the poor sap from this story was.it is a cartoon.a colored-in scribble.the absolute most that should be done in cases like this is to charge someone of indecent or lewd behaviour or something if they go round showing such a picture to children.Where is the need to prosecute people , criminalise them , and place a sex-offender stigma on them for the rest of their life because they looked at or had a bloody cartoon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About 17 years ago when I was in early highschool, about 13-14 years old, the guys in my class had one of these simpsons port cartoons (a single image of lisa simpson sucking off bart simpson, IIRC, with the baby watching on with a dummy in its mouth) on a floppy disk drive, along with other cartoon porn and a slideshow app.
A couple of times we viewed it on the computer (a 386 or something)  and then all made a copy.
I've probably still got that fucking floppy disk drive in my garage with all my other shit that I kept from school.
By the ridiculous standards of these anti cartoon crusaders, I (and half the other guys from my yr-8 class) could be just as easily be convicted as a sex offender as the poor sap from this story was.it is a cartoon.a colored-in scribble.the absolute  most that should be done in cases like this is to charge someone of indecent or lewd behaviour or something if they go round showing such a picture to children.Where is the need to prosecute people, criminalise them, and place a sex-offender stigma on them for the rest of their life because they looked at or had a bloody cartoon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30944026</id>
	<title>What about Washu Hakubi from Tenchi Muyo</title>
	<author>Eightbitgnosis</author>
	<datestamp>1264685340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Washu is a 20,000+ year old being who takes the form of an older woman most of the time, but also likes to take the form of a 10 year old girl. Are sexual pictures of her child form classified as child pornography?
<br> <br>
I'm not sure the courts are ready for all the possible loopholes</htmltext>
<tokenext>Washu is a 20,000 + year old being who takes the form of an older woman most of the time , but also likes to take the form of a 10 year old girl .
Are sexual pictures of her child form classified as child pornography ?
I 'm not sure the courts are ready for all the possible loopholes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Washu is a 20,000+ year old being who takes the form of an older woman most of the time, but also likes to take the form of a 10 year old girl.
Are sexual pictures of her child form classified as child pornography?
I'm not sure the courts are ready for all the possible loopholes</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930316</id>
	<title>Not any more</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264622220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was the original intent, yes. The original idea was that children are not fully developed individuals mentally as well as physically and thus need adults to protect them against various things. As such laws were created that say that children can't enter in to a contract on their own. Likewise, it was decided that children lack the understanding to consent to making porn. So it was outlawed to keep adults from exploiting them for that purpose.</p><p>However now it has become more or less a witch hunt tool. The laws exist only to further themselves and to punish indiscriminately. Best example is two teenagers who were convicted of sending naked photos to each other. They made no effort to distribute the photos to a wider audience and were both under 18. However, they were successfully tried and convicted on child porn charges and that conviction has since been upheld on appeal. After their prison stay, they'll both have to register as sex offenders.</p><p>Clearly such a situation is not designed to protect them from anything. While they may cause themselves harm by sharing nude photos, that harm has already been caused. The harm of going to prison and being labeled a sex offender is far, far worse. So they aren't being protected, they are being punished. There is no point, other than strict enforcement of the existing law.</p><p>There is very little sense to what goes on with regards to these laws at this point. It seems to bypass people's ability to think logically and start off a witch hunt mentality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was the original intent , yes .
The original idea was that children are not fully developed individuals mentally as well as physically and thus need adults to protect them against various things .
As such laws were created that say that children ca n't enter in to a contract on their own .
Likewise , it was decided that children lack the understanding to consent to making porn .
So it was outlawed to keep adults from exploiting them for that purpose.However now it has become more or less a witch hunt tool .
The laws exist only to further themselves and to punish indiscriminately .
Best example is two teenagers who were convicted of sending naked photos to each other .
They made no effort to distribute the photos to a wider audience and were both under 18 .
However , they were successfully tried and convicted on child porn charges and that conviction has since been upheld on appeal .
After their prison stay , they 'll both have to register as sex offenders.Clearly such a situation is not designed to protect them from anything .
While they may cause themselves harm by sharing nude photos , that harm has already been caused .
The harm of going to prison and being labeled a sex offender is far , far worse .
So they are n't being protected , they are being punished .
There is no point , other than strict enforcement of the existing law.There is very little sense to what goes on with regards to these laws at this point .
It seems to bypass people 's ability to think logically and start off a witch hunt mentality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was the original intent, yes.
The original idea was that children are not fully developed individuals mentally as well as physically and thus need adults to protect them against various things.
As such laws were created that say that children can't enter in to a contract on their own.
Likewise, it was decided that children lack the understanding to consent to making porn.
So it was outlawed to keep adults from exploiting them for that purpose.However now it has become more or less a witch hunt tool.
The laws exist only to further themselves and to punish indiscriminately.
Best example is two teenagers who were convicted of sending naked photos to each other.
They made no effort to distribute the photos to a wider audience and were both under 18.
However, they were successfully tried and convicted on child porn charges and that conviction has since been upheld on appeal.
After their prison stay, they'll both have to register as sex offenders.Clearly such a situation is not designed to protect them from anything.
While they may cause themselves harm by sharing nude photos, that harm has already been caused.
The harm of going to prison and being labeled a sex offender is far, far worse.
So they aren't being protected, they are being punished.
There is no point, other than strict enforcement of the existing law.There is very little sense to what goes on with regards to these laws at this point.
It seems to bypass people's ability to think logically and start off a witch hunt mentality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930146</id>
	<title>Cartoon porn is still porn</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1264620060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and Australian law expressly prohibits the possession of pornography depicting sexual acts with people under the age of 18 years.<br> <br>

Despite that this appears to be his first offence and he was not distributing, give him a $1000 fine and tell him not to do it again which is what will likely happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and Australian law expressly prohibits the possession of pornography depicting sexual acts with people under the age of 18 years .
Despite that this appears to be his first offence and he was not distributing , give him a $ 1000 fine and tell him not to do it again which is what will likely happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and Australian law expressly prohibits the possession of pornography depicting sexual acts with people under the age of 18 years.
Despite that this appears to be his first offence and he was not distributing, give him a $1000 fine and tell him not to do it again which is what will likely happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930884</id>
	<title>Re:Cartoon porn is still porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264672260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shh, don't give them the idea that copying the ways of the Chinese communist party and the ultra nationalists of Turkey don't lead to disruption of civil order and government business, and to general disparaging of authority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shh , do n't give them the idea that copying the ways of the Chinese communist party and the ultra nationalists of Turkey do n't lead to disruption of civil order and government business , and to general disparaging of authority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shh, don't give them the idea that copying the ways of the Chinese communist party and the ultra nationalists of Turkey don't lead to disruption of civil order and government business, and to general disparaging of authority.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931104</id>
	<title>What happened to Mangas</title>
	<author>managementboy</author>
	<datestamp>1264674780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did I miss this? Aren't Mangas just another kiddy porn depiction? Are they now illegal in Australia? Are the authorities arresting every Japanese with Mangas in their suitcase as they try to enter the country?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did I miss this ?
Are n't Mangas just another kiddy porn depiction ?
Are they now illegal in Australia ?
Are the authorities arresting every Japanese with Mangas in their suitcase as they try to enter the country ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did I miss this?
Aren't Mangas just another kiddy porn depiction?
Are they now illegal in Australia?
Are the authorities arresting every Japanese with Mangas in their suitcase as they try to enter the country?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931342</id>
	<title>Re:Simpsons Already Did It!</title>
	<author>CharlyFoxtrot</author>
	<datestamp>1264677840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Marge clearly showed her tits, please move on to other types of porn.</p></div><p>As these were "child characters", I doubt he was interested in seeing breasts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Marge clearly showed her tits , please move on to other types of porn.As these were " child characters " , I doubt he was interested in seeing breasts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Marge clearly showed her tits, please move on to other types of porn.As these were "child characters", I doubt he was interested in seeing breasts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931174</id>
	<title>I don't understand...</title>
	<author>nick.cash</author>
	<datestamp>1264675680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand the commentators that think there's nothing inherently wrong with the "Simpsons porn" but still think this charge is all okay because he's been convicted of having child porn before, as if that makes all the difference.

If what he's doing isn't wrong, it shouldn't matter what he's done in the past. If what he's doing is wrong, it still shouldn't matter. I can't see any way to logically arrive at the conclusion that justice was served here solely on the basis that he had done wrong before. They say Justice is blind, etc etc.
Look: he was probably ordered to stay away from schools, jobs involving children, etc. If he has violated that, he would be charged with breaking parole or something similar (whatever the antipodean analogue thereof is) and we would never hear about him. Instead, this is something it appears he was not told not to do, is not normally illegal, and wouldn't be considered wrong if someone else did it... but yet he's being charged with a crime ONLY because he had committed a previous crime. I can't see this as anything other than the Australian authorities on a witch hunt to target anyone classified as a "pedophile". I (admittedly) don't know much about Australian law and politics, but if this were the US, it would almost undoubtedly be some prosecuting attorney wanting to demonstrate that they are "tough on crime" to further their career.

On the other hand, since I having a daughter a little over a year ago, part of me can completely understand the knee-jerk reaction against pedophiles (if anyone hurt my daughter, I can't say what I would do to them)... but I just can't see having that reaction against this guy. I don't think he hurt anyone here. He may have contributed to hurting minors in the past, but it appears he's served his time for that. The law says he's served his time and that's over with (if you want to argue that he should have been punished more, go ahead, but that's irrelevant to the case at hand). He apparently hasn't hurt anyone since. There's no reason this should be held against him.

In short: I've seen a few Simpson's porn pics in my day. Most everyone who's been around on the internet this long has. I've seen most every cartoon, tv show, comic, book, etc Rule 34'ed. I laughed and continued my day. I don't think there was anything wrong with me doing that, and I don't think there's anything wrong with anyone else doing the same thing, even a convicted child porn trafficker. This is a misapplication of the law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand the commentators that think there 's nothing inherently wrong with the " Simpsons porn " but still think this charge is all okay because he 's been convicted of having child porn before , as if that makes all the difference .
If what he 's doing is n't wrong , it should n't matter what he 's done in the past .
If what he 's doing is wrong , it still should n't matter .
I ca n't see any way to logically arrive at the conclusion that justice was served here solely on the basis that he had done wrong before .
They say Justice is blind , etc etc .
Look : he was probably ordered to stay away from schools , jobs involving children , etc .
If he has violated that , he would be charged with breaking parole or something similar ( whatever the antipodean analogue thereof is ) and we would never hear about him .
Instead , this is something it appears he was not told not to do , is not normally illegal , and would n't be considered wrong if someone else did it... but yet he 's being charged with a crime ONLY because he had committed a previous crime .
I ca n't see this as anything other than the Australian authorities on a witch hunt to target anyone classified as a " pedophile " .
I ( admittedly ) do n't know much about Australian law and politics , but if this were the US , it would almost undoubtedly be some prosecuting attorney wanting to demonstrate that they are " tough on crime " to further their career .
On the other hand , since I having a daughter a little over a year ago , part of me can completely understand the knee-jerk reaction against pedophiles ( if anyone hurt my daughter , I ca n't say what I would do to them ) ... but I just ca n't see having that reaction against this guy .
I do n't think he hurt anyone here .
He may have contributed to hurting minors in the past , but it appears he 's served his time for that .
The law says he 's served his time and that 's over with ( if you want to argue that he should have been punished more , go ahead , but that 's irrelevant to the case at hand ) .
He apparently has n't hurt anyone since .
There 's no reason this should be held against him .
In short : I 've seen a few Simpson 's porn pics in my day .
Most everyone who 's been around on the internet this long has .
I 've seen most every cartoon , tv show , comic , book , etc Rule 34'ed .
I laughed and continued my day .
I do n't think there was anything wrong with me doing that , and I do n't think there 's anything wrong with anyone else doing the same thing , even a convicted child porn trafficker .
This is a misapplication of the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand the commentators that think there's nothing inherently wrong with the "Simpsons porn" but still think this charge is all okay because he's been convicted of having child porn before, as if that makes all the difference.
If what he's doing isn't wrong, it shouldn't matter what he's done in the past.
If what he's doing is wrong, it still shouldn't matter.
I can't see any way to logically arrive at the conclusion that justice was served here solely on the basis that he had done wrong before.
They say Justice is blind, etc etc.
Look: he was probably ordered to stay away from schools, jobs involving children, etc.
If he has violated that, he would be charged with breaking parole or something similar (whatever the antipodean analogue thereof is) and we would never hear about him.
Instead, this is something it appears he was not told not to do, is not normally illegal, and wouldn't be considered wrong if someone else did it... but yet he's being charged with a crime ONLY because he had committed a previous crime.
I can't see this as anything other than the Australian authorities on a witch hunt to target anyone classified as a "pedophile".
I (admittedly) don't know much about Australian law and politics, but if this were the US, it would almost undoubtedly be some prosecuting attorney wanting to demonstrate that they are "tough on crime" to further their career.
On the other hand, since I having a daughter a little over a year ago, part of me can completely understand the knee-jerk reaction against pedophiles (if anyone hurt my daughter, I can't say what I would do to them)... but I just can't see having that reaction against this guy.
I don't think he hurt anyone here.
He may have contributed to hurting minors in the past, but it appears he's served his time for that.
The law says he's served his time and that's over with (if you want to argue that he should have been punished more, go ahead, but that's irrelevant to the case at hand).
He apparently hasn't hurt anyone since.
There's no reason this should be held against him.
In short: I've seen a few Simpson's porn pics in my day.
Most everyone who's been around on the internet this long has.
I've seen most every cartoon, tv show, comic, book, etc Rule 34'ed.
I laughed and continued my day.
I don't think there was anything wrong with me doing that, and I don't think there's anything wrong with anyone else doing the same thing, even a convicted child porn trafficker.
This is a misapplication of the law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931058</id>
	<title>Oh dear god</title>
	<author>DeanLearner</author>
	<datestamp>1264674420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your honour, in my defence... GET OUT BART IM PISS!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your honour , in my defence... GET OUT BART IM PISS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your honour, in my defence... GET OUT BART IM PISS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931128</id>
	<title>Re:Aren't child pornography for protecting childre</title>
	<author>VShael</author>
	<datestamp>1264675080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I thought the point of harsh laws against child pornography were meant to prevent the exploitation of children. </i></p><p>I wonder what gave you a crazy idea like that.</p><p>Tell me, do you also believe that the drug laws are there to protect the health of the citizens?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the point of harsh laws against child pornography were meant to prevent the exploitation of children .
I wonder what gave you a crazy idea like that.Tell me , do you also believe that the drug laws are there to protect the health of the citizens ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the point of harsh laws against child pornography were meant to prevent the exploitation of children.
I wonder what gave you a crazy idea like that.Tell me, do you also believe that the drug laws are there to protect the health of the citizens?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930232</id>
	<title>Old News</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264621260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/simpsons-cartoon-ripoff-is-child-porn-judge-20081208-6tmk.html" title="theage.com.au">Old News from 2008</a> [theage.com.au]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Old News from 2008 [ theage.com.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old News from 2008 [theage.com.au]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931044</id>
	<title>Re:Bart's Unit</title>
	<author>Mr\_Miagi</author>
	<datestamp>1264674300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Is it me or didn't Bart go skateboarding naked in the movie, including showing his "talent".</p></div><p>
Some would argue that Bart skateboarding naked isn't "suggestive" enough to be classed as porn, but what about when he's handcuffed shortly thereafter, totally naked?
<br> <br>
Surely the Australian Government can't convict everyone who paid to go watch the movie?
<br> <br>
This case is quite stupid, although the image in question is much more "pornographic" in nature than any part of the film ever was. I guess the jury will have to decide what constitutes "engaging in sexual acts".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it me or did n't Bart go skateboarding naked in the movie , including showing his " talent " .
Some would argue that Bart skateboarding naked is n't " suggestive " enough to be classed as porn , but what about when he 's handcuffed shortly thereafter , totally naked ?
Surely the Australian Government ca n't convict everyone who paid to go watch the movie ?
This case is quite stupid , although the image in question is much more " pornographic " in nature than any part of the film ever was .
I guess the jury will have to decide what constitutes " engaging in sexual acts " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Is it me or didn't Bart go skateboarding naked in the movie, including showing his "talent".
Some would argue that Bart skateboarding naked isn't "suggestive" enough to be classed as porn, but what about when he's handcuffed shortly thereafter, totally naked?
Surely the Australian Government can't convict everyone who paid to go watch the movie?
This case is quite stupid, although the image in question is much more "pornographic" in nature than any part of the film ever was.
I guess the jury will have to decide what constitutes "engaging in sexual acts".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933022</id>
	<title>disclaimers</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1264693260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So people put disclaimers in their work stating all characters portrayed are 18 or older. This strikes me as amusing for manga that's obviously set in a high school. It also strikes me as amusing when those disclaimers go on manga with no mature content.</p><p>My question is this: what if someone brings out a manga with obviously adult females engaging in flagrante tentacloo and then labels them as 16-yr olds? Do we go by how old they look or how old the artist claims they are?</p><p>The Japanese are real pervs and their whole lolicon thing is skeevy to the nth degree. I forget the name of the book but there was one with two cyborg chicks, both of legal age but one insisted on using a cyber-body that looked about 11. Yeah, keep rationalizing it you pervs. But what if someone did the opposite? What if the story has a 12-year old girl who was fatally injured and saved by implanting her mind in an adult cyber-body? And what if the tentacle monster attacked it? Would that be illegal? The body may look adult but the author told you it's a 12-yr old girl in there.</p><p>Hell, we could take that back to American cinema. You have a Freaky Friday story, mom and daughter swap bodies. Now assuming mom is divorced and they're both dating, what if they have sex with the boyfriends in the swapped bodies?</p><p>I would like to think that everything I said here shows the absurdity of the line of reasoning but I sadly think judges would be scratching their chins in thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So people put disclaimers in their work stating all characters portrayed are 18 or older .
This strikes me as amusing for manga that 's obviously set in a high school .
It also strikes me as amusing when those disclaimers go on manga with no mature content.My question is this : what if someone brings out a manga with obviously adult females engaging in flagrante tentacloo and then labels them as 16-yr olds ?
Do we go by how old they look or how old the artist claims they are ? The Japanese are real pervs and their whole lolicon thing is skeevy to the nth degree .
I forget the name of the book but there was one with two cyborg chicks , both of legal age but one insisted on using a cyber-body that looked about 11 .
Yeah , keep rationalizing it you pervs .
But what if someone did the opposite ?
What if the story has a 12-year old girl who was fatally injured and saved by implanting her mind in an adult cyber-body ?
And what if the tentacle monster attacked it ?
Would that be illegal ?
The body may look adult but the author told you it 's a 12-yr old girl in there.Hell , we could take that back to American cinema .
You have a Freaky Friday story , mom and daughter swap bodies .
Now assuming mom is divorced and they 're both dating , what if they have sex with the boyfriends in the swapped bodies ? I would like to think that everything I said here shows the absurdity of the line of reasoning but I sadly think judges would be scratching their chins in thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So people put disclaimers in their work stating all characters portrayed are 18 or older.
This strikes me as amusing for manga that's obviously set in a high school.
It also strikes me as amusing when those disclaimers go on manga with no mature content.My question is this: what if someone brings out a manga with obviously adult females engaging in flagrante tentacloo and then labels them as 16-yr olds?
Do we go by how old they look or how old the artist claims they are?The Japanese are real pervs and their whole lolicon thing is skeevy to the nth degree.
I forget the name of the book but there was one with two cyborg chicks, both of legal age but one insisted on using a cyber-body that looked about 11.
Yeah, keep rationalizing it you pervs.
But what if someone did the opposite?
What if the story has a 12-year old girl who was fatally injured and saved by implanting her mind in an adult cyber-body?
And what if the tentacle monster attacked it?
Would that be illegal?
The body may look adult but the author told you it's a 12-yr old girl in there.Hell, we could take that back to American cinema.
You have a Freaky Friday story, mom and daughter swap bodies.
Now assuming mom is divorced and they're both dating, what if they have sex with the boyfriends in the swapped bodies?I would like to think that everything I said here shows the absurdity of the line of reasoning but I sadly think judges would be scratching their chins in thought.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30946370</id>
	<title>Disneyland orgy anyone?</title>
	<author>aqk</author>
	<datestamp>1264707300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Am I the only<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.er around here who remembers <br>
 Wally Wood's wonderful <a href="http://www.blogue.tk/im/Disneyland-Memorial72.jpg" title="blogue.tk" rel="nofollow"> <b>Disneyland Memorial? </b> </a> [blogue.tk] <br>
From what I can see, it involved quite a few "underage" cartoon characters!<br>
Why, when it was published in Paul Krassner's Realist, it practically made Walt spin in his grave... er, tank of nitrogen!<br>

 <br>Does this mean I'll be hearing a knock at the door soon for giving this link?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only /.er around here who remembers Wally Wood 's wonderful Disneyland Memorial ?
[ blogue.tk ] From what I can see , it involved quite a few " underage " cartoon characters !
Why , when it was published in Paul Krassner 's Realist , it practically made Walt spin in his grave... er , tank of nitrogen !
Does this mean I 'll be hearing a knock at the door soon for giving this link ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only /.er around here who remembers 
 Wally Wood's wonderful  Disneyland Memorial?
[blogue.tk] 
From what I can see, it involved quite a few "underage" cartoon characters!
Why, when it was published in Paul Krassner's Realist, it practically made Walt spin in his grave... er, tank of nitrogen!
Does this mean I'll be hearing a knock at the door soon for giving this link?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930348</id>
	<title>Thought Crime Clich&#233;</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264708860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This guy sounds like a less than savoury character, and genuine (ie. real, as in, with real children) child pornography is not excusable, but I'll bite for the ethical argument.</p><p> <b>Question: Why is child pornography illegal?</b> </p><p>I'd argue the primary reason is the obvious trauma, emotional and often physical, that such pornography involves. Occassionally you hear claims that it may be consensual (think 13 year olds consenting to the acts), but there's the reasoned argument that a person of that age is probably not mentally developed enough to fully appreciate what they are getting into. Those who download child pornography can be considered an accessory to the crime, to the extent they are perpetuating its continued existence by providing the market. However, in the case of animated/drawn child pornography, who's been hurt? These characters don't exist, they are a pure fantasy, they feel no more than the Doom monsters I killed thousands of as a child.</p><p>Legally, who's the victim? Who's been harmed? Society has a habit of working itself into an absolute frenzy whenever child pornography and pedophilia comes up; it could well be the only thing that trumps terrorism in sheer levels of hysteria. But from a rational perspective, why should I care if the creepy dude next door likes to wank to Lisa Simpson? If those activities enter into the real world, then yes, we have a serious problem, but I've "murdered" a lot of beings, both alien and human, I've yet to do that in the real world, but I'm not stigmatised by society and labelled a, what, "murder offender"? My point being, I find the notion of prosecuting and convicting someone for what they have thought, versus what they have actually done in the real world, seriously disturbing; put simply, if someones actions don't cause any harm to others or themselves, I don't view it as my business to intrude. Bluntly, I think a lot of people have very creepy fetishes, it's just children have that particularly special status.</p><p>What's sad, is that so few people will stand up in these kind of cases, for fear of themselves being labelled a closet pedophile or similar. I mean, what decent human being could possibly want to side with a pedophile? So people stay quiet and just let governments legislate against this sort of stuff. Child Pornography has been one of (if not <b>THE</b>) argument for the mandatory internet filter the government intends to implement down here in Australia, despite the fact, anyone with an ounce of grey matter can tell you it isn't going to work to stop the distribution of this stuff for a multitude of reasons, one of the most obvious being, it can only filter HTTP traffic. But, pointing this out to others can be difficult thanks to the pedophile invocation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy sounds like a less than savoury character , and genuine ( ie .
real , as in , with real children ) child pornography is not excusable , but I 'll bite for the ethical argument .
Question : Why is child pornography illegal ?
I 'd argue the primary reason is the obvious trauma , emotional and often physical , that such pornography involves .
Occassionally you hear claims that it may be consensual ( think 13 year olds consenting to the acts ) , but there 's the reasoned argument that a person of that age is probably not mentally developed enough to fully appreciate what they are getting into .
Those who download child pornography can be considered an accessory to the crime , to the extent they are perpetuating its continued existence by providing the market .
However , in the case of animated/drawn child pornography , who 's been hurt ?
These characters do n't exist , they are a pure fantasy , they feel no more than the Doom monsters I killed thousands of as a child.Legally , who 's the victim ?
Who 's been harmed ?
Society has a habit of working itself into an absolute frenzy whenever child pornography and pedophilia comes up ; it could well be the only thing that trumps terrorism in sheer levels of hysteria .
But from a rational perspective , why should I care if the creepy dude next door likes to wank to Lisa Simpson ?
If those activities enter into the real world , then yes , we have a serious problem , but I 've " murdered " a lot of beings , both alien and human , I 've yet to do that in the real world , but I 'm not stigmatised by society and labelled a , what , " murder offender " ?
My point being , I find the notion of prosecuting and convicting someone for what they have thought , versus what they have actually done in the real world , seriously disturbing ; put simply , if someones actions do n't cause any harm to others or themselves , I do n't view it as my business to intrude .
Bluntly , I think a lot of people have very creepy fetishes , it 's just children have that particularly special status.What 's sad , is that so few people will stand up in these kind of cases , for fear of themselves being labelled a closet pedophile or similar .
I mean , what decent human being could possibly want to side with a pedophile ?
So people stay quiet and just let governments legislate against this sort of stuff .
Child Pornography has been one of ( if not THE ) argument for the mandatory internet filter the government intends to implement down here in Australia , despite the fact , anyone with an ounce of grey matter can tell you it is n't going to work to stop the distribution of this stuff for a multitude of reasons , one of the most obvious being , it can only filter HTTP traffic .
But , pointing this out to others can be difficult thanks to the pedophile invocation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy sounds like a less than savoury character, and genuine (ie.
real, as in, with real children) child pornography is not excusable, but I'll bite for the ethical argument.
Question: Why is child pornography illegal?
I'd argue the primary reason is the obvious trauma, emotional and often physical, that such pornography involves.
Occassionally you hear claims that it may be consensual (think 13 year olds consenting to the acts), but there's the reasoned argument that a person of that age is probably not mentally developed enough to fully appreciate what they are getting into.
Those who download child pornography can be considered an accessory to the crime, to the extent they are perpetuating its continued existence by providing the market.
However, in the case of animated/drawn child pornography, who's been hurt?
These characters don't exist, they are a pure fantasy, they feel no more than the Doom monsters I killed thousands of as a child.Legally, who's the victim?
Who's been harmed?
Society has a habit of working itself into an absolute frenzy whenever child pornography and pedophilia comes up; it could well be the only thing that trumps terrorism in sheer levels of hysteria.
But from a rational perspective, why should I care if the creepy dude next door likes to wank to Lisa Simpson?
If those activities enter into the real world, then yes, we have a serious problem, but I've "murdered" a lot of beings, both alien and human, I've yet to do that in the real world, but I'm not stigmatised by society and labelled a, what, "murder offender"?
My point being, I find the notion of prosecuting and convicting someone for what they have thought, versus what they have actually done in the real world, seriously disturbing; put simply, if someones actions don't cause any harm to others or themselves, I don't view it as my business to intrude.
Bluntly, I think a lot of people have very creepy fetishes, it's just children have that particularly special status.What's sad, is that so few people will stand up in these kind of cases, for fear of themselves being labelled a closet pedophile or similar.
I mean, what decent human being could possibly want to side with a pedophile?
So people stay quiet and just let governments legislate against this sort of stuff.
Child Pornography has been one of (if not THE) argument for the mandatory internet filter the government intends to implement down here in Australia, despite the fact, anyone with an ounce of grey matter can tell you it isn't going to work to stop the distribution of this stuff for a multitude of reasons, one of the most obvious being, it can only filter HTTP traffic.
But, pointing this out to others can be difficult thanks to the pedophile invocation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931452</id>
	<title>Comic book guy</title>
	<author>ThaReetLad</author>
	<datestamp>1264678800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it just me, or does that guy bear more than a passing resemblance to Comic Book Guy?</p><p>Also, talking about Simpsons porn, will Australia make the London 2012 Olympic logo illegal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me , or does that guy bear more than a passing resemblance to Comic Book Guy ? Also , talking about Simpsons porn , will Australia make the London 2012 Olympic logo illegal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just me, or does that guy bear more than a passing resemblance to Comic Book Guy?Also, talking about Simpsons porn, will Australia make the London 2012 Olympic logo illegal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930390</id>
	<title>Re:Aren't child pornography for protecting childre</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264709520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Clearly he should have been arrested for copyright infringement instead.</p></div><p>Copyright infringement? In which episode did the child porn appear in?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly he should have been arrested for copyright infringement instead.Copyright infringement ?
In which episode did the child porn appear in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly he should have been arrested for copyright infringement instead.Copyright infringement?
In which episode did the child porn appear in?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30935458</id>
	<title>What about anybody who has seen the Simpsons Movie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264701120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I remember, Bart skateboards in a scene with his pants down, you can clearly see his cartoon penis...<br>Should everyone who watched the movie also be prosecuted? What's the legal status of this movie in Australia?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I remember , Bart skateboards in a scene with his pants down , you can clearly see his cartoon penis...Should everyone who watched the movie also be prosecuted ?
What 's the legal status of this movie in Australia ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I remember, Bart skateboards in a scene with his pants down, you can clearly see his cartoon penis...Should everyone who watched the movie also be prosecuted?
What's the legal status of this movie in Australia?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930900</id>
	<title>I DEMAND THE RIGHT TO VOTE!</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1264672560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I demand the right to vote for all 5000 of my stick figure characters!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I demand the right to vote for all 5000 of my stick figure characters !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I demand the right to vote for all 5000 of my stick figure characters!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931986</id>
	<title>Rule 34...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264686600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rule 34...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rule 34.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rule 34...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.31020046</id>
	<title>One solution to pedophiliac acts</title>
	<author>a-zA-Z0-9$\_.+!*'(),x</author>
	<datestamp>1265277660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since most children are abused by relatives or friends, children should all be removed at birth from their parents and raised by robots isolated from all human contact.
<br>
Then they will be safe from sexual abuse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since most children are abused by relatives or friends , children should all be removed at birth from their parents and raised by robots isolated from all human contact .
Then they will be safe from sexual abuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since most children are abused by relatives or friends, children should all be removed at birth from their parents and raised by robots isolated from all human contact.
Then they will be safe from sexual abuse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931586</id>
	<title>uhoh</title>
	<author>Noitatsidem</author>
	<datestamp>1264680780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm imagining CP right now, I'm hurting so many children<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;\_;</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm imagining CP right now , I 'm hurting so many children ; \ _ ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm imagining CP right now, I'm hurting so many children ;\_;</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930990</id>
	<title>Re:MOD PARENT UP</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1264673760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And no, I didn't rtfa.</p></div><p>It's as simple as this: he pleaded guilty.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And no , I did n't rtfa.It 's as simple as this : he pleaded guilty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And no, I didn't rtfa.It's as simple as this: he pleaded guilty.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931606</id>
	<title>Re:All hail</title>
	<author>Elky Elk</author>
	<datestamp>1264681140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He never did it, he only said he did it so they'd take his testicles out of the mangle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He never did it , he only said he did it so they 'd take his testicles out of the mangle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He never did it, he only said he did it so they'd take his testicles out of the mangle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930440</id>
	<title>Partial nudity</title>
	<author>loshwomp</author>
	<datestamp>1264710060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn.</p></div><p>The whole idea of "partial nudity" is silly anyway.  Anyone who isn't covered from head to toe is "partially nude".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn.The whole idea of " partial nudity " is silly anyway .
Anyone who is n't covered from head to toe is " partially nude " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn.The whole idea of "partial nudity" is silly anyway.
Anyone who isn't covered from head to toe is "partially nude".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931096</id>
	<title>Re:Cartoon porn is still porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264674720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What he did or did not do the first time shouldn't be a complicating factor in what will now be an ever-present bit of legal precedent.  Henceforth all depictions of conceivably minor characters in sexual scenarios will be a dangerous thing to approach in Australia.  Where this gets interesting to me, as an artist, is in the realm of commercial art where certain criteria indicate youthful features, but only the story itself is any reasonable indicator of the age of the character.  Look at the females in Japanese animation and very often height is the only indicator of age.</p><p>Regarding the subject line I'm replying to.  Cartoon porn is still porn, but cartoon children are not children any more than E.T. is an alien.  I'm not going to push to have people who saw E.T. brought up on charges for torturing some poor alien just because I think people might watch that movie and decided that's what they want to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What he did or did not do the first time should n't be a complicating factor in what will now be an ever-present bit of legal precedent .
Henceforth all depictions of conceivably minor characters in sexual scenarios will be a dangerous thing to approach in Australia .
Where this gets interesting to me , as an artist , is in the realm of commercial art where certain criteria indicate youthful features , but only the story itself is any reasonable indicator of the age of the character .
Look at the females in Japanese animation and very often height is the only indicator of age.Regarding the subject line I 'm replying to .
Cartoon porn is still porn , but cartoon children are not children any more than E.T .
is an alien .
I 'm not going to push to have people who saw E.T .
brought up on charges for torturing some poor alien just because I think people might watch that movie and decided that 's what they want to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What he did or did not do the first time shouldn't be a complicating factor in what will now be an ever-present bit of legal precedent.
Henceforth all depictions of conceivably minor characters in sexual scenarios will be a dangerous thing to approach in Australia.
Where this gets interesting to me, as an artist, is in the realm of commercial art where certain criteria indicate youthful features, but only the story itself is any reasonable indicator of the age of the character.
Look at the females in Japanese animation and very often height is the only indicator of age.Regarding the subject line I'm replying to.
Cartoon porn is still porn, but cartoon children are not children any more than E.T.
is an alien.
I'm not going to push to have people who saw E.T.
brought up on charges for torturing some poor alien just because I think people might watch that movie and decided that's what they want to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30936522</id>
	<title>Re:A fine line has been drawn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264704180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sound so tough on child porn you are obviously not a pedophile.</p><p>I heard many storys about ashamed homosexual that use to hate, and some time commit crime on affirmed homosexual only to convicne them self they are not one of them. I wonder if we can draw parallel with such virtuous believes as yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sound so tough on child porn you are obviously not a pedophile.I heard many storys about ashamed homosexual that use to hate , and some time commit crime on affirmed homosexual only to convicne them self they are not one of them .
I wonder if we can draw parallel with such virtuous believes as yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sound so tough on child porn you are obviously not a pedophile.I heard many storys about ashamed homosexual that use to hate, and some time commit crime on affirmed homosexual only to convicne them self they are not one of them.
I wonder if we can draw parallel with such virtuous believes as yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930626</id>
	<title>Re:Not any more</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264712340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The human race has jumped the shark. Everyone should slice themselves open and let their guts roll out onto the ground now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The human race has jumped the shark .
Everyone should slice themselves open and let their guts roll out onto the ground now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The human race has jumped the shark.
Everyone should slice themselves open and let their guts roll out onto the ground now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932300</id>
	<title>Re:What happened to Mangas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264688820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why on earth would this be rated insightful? Manga is simply the japanese word for drawn stories. You'll find it called differently elsewhere, i.e. korean manhwa, comics, or visual novels. That post randomly equates the entire medium with one possible subject matter. Shall I now assume the entire field of american motion pictures is pornography too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why on earth would this be rated insightful ?
Manga is simply the japanese word for drawn stories .
You 'll find it called differently elsewhere , i.e .
korean manhwa , comics , or visual novels .
That post randomly equates the entire medium with one possible subject matter .
Shall I now assume the entire field of american motion pictures is pornography too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why on earth would this be rated insightful?
Manga is simply the japanese word for drawn stories.
You'll find it called differently elsewhere, i.e.
korean manhwa, comics, or visual novels.
That post randomly equates the entire medium with one possible subject matter.
Shall I now assume the entire field of american motion pictures is pornography too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932630</id>
	<title>Re:Cartoon porn is still porn</title>
	<author>allseason radial</author>
	<datestamp>1264690920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which brings up this: How the hell does anyone know what gender these cartoon characters were to begin with? Did they have genitalia before this guy drew them on? What if the accused drew Bart with a *a*ina and Lisa with a *eni* (sarcastic self-censorship)? Would it still have been porno if he left off the genitals and just drew the characters without clothing? What about if he drew just the genitalia and imagined them as belonging to a Bart Maggie or Lisa? You know, in his head? Would that have been arrestable? I don't particularly want to defend chesters, but this seems little mmm... what's the word I'm seeking? "Nuts" maybe?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which brings up this : How the hell does anyone know what gender these cartoon characters were to begin with ?
Did they have genitalia before this guy drew them on ?
What if the accused drew Bart with a * a * ina and Lisa with a * eni * ( sarcastic self-censorship ) ?
Would it still have been porno if he left off the genitals and just drew the characters without clothing ?
What about if he drew just the genitalia and imagined them as belonging to a Bart Maggie or Lisa ?
You know , in his head ?
Would that have been arrestable ?
I do n't particularly want to defend chesters , but this seems little mmm... what 's the word I 'm seeking ?
" Nuts " maybe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which brings up this: How the hell does anyone know what gender these cartoon characters were to begin with?
Did they have genitalia before this guy drew them on?
What if the accused drew Bart with a *a*ina and Lisa with a *eni* (sarcastic self-censorship)?
Would it still have been porno if he left off the genitals and just drew the characters without clothing?
What about if he drew just the genitalia and imagined them as belonging to a Bart Maggie or Lisa?
You know, in his head?
Would that have been arrestable?
I don't particularly want to defend chesters, but this seems little mmm... what's the word I'm seeking?
"Nuts" maybe?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930796</id>
	<title>Re:Cartoon porn is still porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264671000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who modded this guy a 5 for posting a slippery slope argument.</p><p>There is a fallacy on the 4th step at least, probably the 2nd, and-in America at least-the 1st (as an American I can attest to being quite the fan of violence in media.  We would never give that up.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who modded this guy a 5 for posting a slippery slope argument.There is a fallacy on the 4th step at least , probably the 2nd , and-in America at least-the 1st ( as an American I can attest to being quite the fan of violence in media .
We would never give that up .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who modded this guy a 5 for posting a slippery slope argument.There is a fallacy on the 4th step at least, probably the 2nd, and-in America at least-the 1st (as an American I can attest to being quite the fan of violence in media.
We would never give that up.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30941206</id>
	<title>Re:Dilution of "Sex Offender" status</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1264673340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There have been people placed on it for peeing in public, as well as couples that started having sex as 14/15 year olds, and when it became where one was old enough, that one was charged with a crime (I think it was 16/15, but it may have been another pair of ages).  It's always been a mess, even from the beginning.  It should be limited to violent offenses only, but isn't (and I know many disagree with me, but statutory rape isn't violent, though maybe there could be a place for that on the list if the age difference is where one was over 21 and the other under 16, but anything that puts two people at the same high school in trouble if they have sex is just wrong, in my book).</htmltext>
<tokenext>There have been people placed on it for peeing in public , as well as couples that started having sex as 14/15 year olds , and when it became where one was old enough , that one was charged with a crime ( I think it was 16/15 , but it may have been another pair of ages ) .
It 's always been a mess , even from the beginning .
It should be limited to violent offenses only , but is n't ( and I know many disagree with me , but statutory rape is n't violent , though maybe there could be a place for that on the list if the age difference is where one was over 21 and the other under 16 , but anything that puts two people at the same high school in trouble if they have sex is just wrong , in my book ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There have been people placed on it for peeing in public, as well as couples that started having sex as 14/15 year olds, and when it became where one was old enough, that one was charged with a crime (I think it was 16/15, but it may have been another pair of ages).
It's always been a mess, even from the beginning.
It should be limited to violent offenses only, but isn't (and I know many disagree with me, but statutory rape isn't violent, though maybe there could be a place for that on the list if the age difference is where one was over 21 and the other under 16, but anything that puts two people at the same high school in trouble if they have sex is just wrong, in my book).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30942072</id>
	<title>They aren't children</title>
	<author>Supergibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1264676160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every character (well most) are at least 21 years (seasons) old. They must all have some disorder where they don't age.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every character ( well most ) are at least 21 years ( seasons ) old .
They must all have some disorder where they do n't age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every character (well most) are at least 21 years (seasons) old.
They must all have some disorder where they don't age.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931930</id>
	<title>Re:Thought Crime Clich&#233;</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1264686000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we agree that it's the production of real[1] CP that's harmful to kids.</p><p>And if we also agree that downloading harms the producers (must be true - the movie and music industries say so).</p><p>Then the only conclusion you can draw is that the logical thing to do is <i>encourage</i> downloading of CP.  Heck, make it compulsory!</p><p>[1] Not cartoon, not CGI, not some 25 year old woman who's a bit thin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we agree that it 's the production of real [ 1 ] CP that 's harmful to kids.And if we also agree that downloading harms the producers ( must be true - the movie and music industries say so ) .Then the only conclusion you can draw is that the logical thing to do is encourage downloading of CP .
Heck , make it compulsory !
[ 1 ] Not cartoon , not CGI , not some 25 year old woman who 's a bit thin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we agree that it's the production of real[1] CP that's harmful to kids.And if we also agree that downloading harms the producers (must be true - the movie and music industries say so).Then the only conclusion you can draw is that the logical thing to do is encourage downloading of CP.
Heck, make it compulsory!
[1] Not cartoon, not CGI, not some 25 year old woman who's a bit thin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930898</id>
	<title>Re:Not any more</title>
	<author>c6gunner</author>
	<datestamp>1264672560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like your general point, but I gotta comment on the following:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Best example is two teenagers who were convicted of sending naked photos to each other. They made no effort to distribute the photos to a wider audience and were both under 18. However, they were successfully tried and convicted on child porn charges and that conviction has since been upheld on appeal. After their prison stay, they'll both have to register as sex offenders.</p></div><p>Not that I'm TOO surprised to hear about something that idiotic<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but could you please provide a source?  It seems like a bit of an overreaction even for the Save-Our-Kids fanatics.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Clearly such a situation is not designed to protect them from anything. While they may cause themselves harm by sharing nude photos, that harm has already been caused. The harm of going to prison and being labeled a sex offender is far, far worse</p></div><p>That's a really dumb line of argument.  Observe:</p><p>Murder laws are intended to protect you from being killed.  So if you go out and kill someone, clearly we shouldn't arrest you since such a situation would not be designed to protect you from anything.   While you may cause harm by killing someone, that harm has already been caused.</p><p>See?  You're using the "individual" and "society" as if they were interchangeable, and they're not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like your general point , but I got ta comment on the following : Best example is two teenagers who were convicted of sending naked photos to each other .
They made no effort to distribute the photos to a wider audience and were both under 18 .
However , they were successfully tried and convicted on child porn charges and that conviction has since been upheld on appeal .
After their prison stay , they 'll both have to register as sex offenders.Not that I 'm TOO surprised to hear about something that idiotic ... but could you please provide a source ?
It seems like a bit of an overreaction even for the Save-Our-Kids fanatics.Clearly such a situation is not designed to protect them from anything .
While they may cause themselves harm by sharing nude photos , that harm has already been caused .
The harm of going to prison and being labeled a sex offender is far , far worseThat 's a really dumb line of argument .
Observe : Murder laws are intended to protect you from being killed .
So if you go out and kill someone , clearly we should n't arrest you since such a situation would not be designed to protect you from anything .
While you may cause harm by killing someone , that harm has already been caused.See ?
You 're using the " individual " and " society " as if they were interchangeable , and they 're not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like your general point, but I gotta comment on the following:Best example is two teenagers who were convicted of sending naked photos to each other.
They made no effort to distribute the photos to a wider audience and were both under 18.
However, they were successfully tried and convicted on child porn charges and that conviction has since been upheld on appeal.
After their prison stay, they'll both have to register as sex offenders.Not that I'm TOO surprised to hear about something that idiotic ... but could you please provide a source?
It seems like a bit of an overreaction even for the Save-Our-Kids fanatics.Clearly such a situation is not designed to protect them from anything.
While they may cause themselves harm by sharing nude photos, that harm has already been caused.
The harm of going to prison and being labeled a sex offender is far, far worseThat's a really dumb line of argument.
Observe:Murder laws are intended to protect you from being killed.
So if you go out and kill someone, clearly we shouldn't arrest you since such a situation would not be designed to protect you from anything.
While you may cause harm by killing someone, that harm has already been caused.See?
You're using the "individual" and "society" as if they were interchangeable, and they're not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932054</id>
	<title>Convict me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264687260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I saw Bart's penis in the Simpon's Movie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw Bart 's penis in the Simpon 's Movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw Bart's penis in the Simpon's Movie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30935730</id>
	<title>Anyone harmed for the making of this?</title>
	<author>houbou</author>
	<datestamp>1264701840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know the saying: "no animals were harmed in the making of this product", well, that's how I feel about these cartoons.<br> <br>

Have kids been harmed in the making of these cartoons? Seriously, unless the artists used live kids doing these deeds to inspire themselves in recreating these cartoons, then these cartoons are just another form of expression, an art form to some, deviant, crude and rude, for most, many will laugh, many will not care and many will be totally offended.  But they are not real, they are drawings.<br> <br>

Now, real sex offenders are the ones producing actual pedophilia and/or pornographic material which is NOT made by consenting adults (rape, etc..)<br> <br>

Think of the Iraq war, where Iraqi women were raped by US soldiers or in Afghanistan, were Afghan Soldiers and interpreters are raping young boys.  That is sick, that is real, and these are sex offenders.<br> <br>

But viewing these cartoons, to me, well, as long as you don't show them to children, who cares!!<br> <br>

To each his/her own I say.  Personally, I don't think they are funny, but that's my opinion, certainly, I wouldn't enforce this onto others.<br> <br>

In my honest opinion, this type of content should be placed in sites restricted to adults. No one should be able to "google" this stuff so easily, should be restricted.  Again, to repeat myself, this is my opinion.<br> <br>

As far as labelling anyone a "sex offender" for viewing these things, all this does is make this society one step closer where soon you will be arrested if you have naughty, angry thoughts.<br> <br>

Anybody remembering the "Minority Report" movie?<br> <br>

When a judge at the Supreme Court, decides that viewing these types of cartoons makes one a "sex offender", it's time for that judge to visit ye ol' "Funny Farm" and take a long vacation in a very round room with lots of padding and and have this judge wear one of these shirts where your arms are tied to your sides.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know the saying : " no animals were harmed in the making of this product " , well , that 's how I feel about these cartoons .
Have kids been harmed in the making of these cartoons ?
Seriously , unless the artists used live kids doing these deeds to inspire themselves in recreating these cartoons , then these cartoons are just another form of expression , an art form to some , deviant , crude and rude , for most , many will laugh , many will not care and many will be totally offended .
But they are not real , they are drawings .
Now , real sex offenders are the ones producing actual pedophilia and/or pornographic material which is NOT made by consenting adults ( rape , etc.. ) Think of the Iraq war , where Iraqi women were raped by US soldiers or in Afghanistan , were Afghan Soldiers and interpreters are raping young boys .
That is sick , that is real , and these are sex offenders .
But viewing these cartoons , to me , well , as long as you do n't show them to children , who cares ! !
To each his/her own I say .
Personally , I do n't think they are funny , but that 's my opinion , certainly , I would n't enforce this onto others .
In my honest opinion , this type of content should be placed in sites restricted to adults .
No one should be able to " google " this stuff so easily , should be restricted .
Again , to repeat myself , this is my opinion .
As far as labelling anyone a " sex offender " for viewing these things , all this does is make this society one step closer where soon you will be arrested if you have naughty , angry thoughts .
Anybody remembering the " Minority Report " movie ?
When a judge at the Supreme Court , decides that viewing these types of cartoons makes one a " sex offender " , it 's time for that judge to visit ye ol ' " Funny Farm " and take a long vacation in a very round room with lots of padding and and have this judge wear one of these shirts where your arms are tied to your sides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know the saying: "no animals were harmed in the making of this product", well, that's how I feel about these cartoons.
Have kids been harmed in the making of these cartoons?
Seriously, unless the artists used live kids doing these deeds to inspire themselves in recreating these cartoons, then these cartoons are just another form of expression, an art form to some, deviant, crude and rude, for most, many will laugh, many will not care and many will be totally offended.
But they are not real, they are drawings.
Now, real sex offenders are the ones producing actual pedophilia and/or pornographic material which is NOT made by consenting adults (rape, etc..) 

Think of the Iraq war, where Iraqi women were raped by US soldiers or in Afghanistan, were Afghan Soldiers and interpreters are raping young boys.
That is sick, that is real, and these are sex offenders.
But viewing these cartoons, to me, well, as long as you don't show them to children, who cares!!
To each his/her own I say.
Personally, I don't think they are funny, but that's my opinion, certainly, I wouldn't enforce this onto others.
In my honest opinion, this type of content should be placed in sites restricted to adults.
No one should be able to "google" this stuff so easily, should be restricted.
Again, to repeat myself, this is my opinion.
As far as labelling anyone a "sex offender" for viewing these things, all this does is make this society one step closer where soon you will be arrested if you have naughty, angry thoughts.
Anybody remembering the "Minority Report" movie?
When a judge at the Supreme Court, decides that viewing these types of cartoons makes one a "sex offender", it's time for that judge to visit ye ol' "Funny Farm" and take a long vacation in a very round room with lots of padding and and have this judge wear one of these shirts where your arms are tied to your sides.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930402</id>
	<title>Thought crime...</title>
	<author>nightfire-unique</author>
	<datestamp>1264709640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...defined.</p><p>Our species fails it here... big time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...defined.Our species fails it here... big time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...defined.Our species fails it here... big time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930336</id>
	<title>Re:Bad write up.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264708800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All that may be true. It doesn't change the fact that he was a sexual offender before this case took place, and that his claim that these were mere amusements rings false.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All that may be true .
It does n't change the fact that he was a sexual offender before this case took place , and that his claim that these were mere amusements rings false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All that may be true.
It doesn't change the fact that he was a sexual offender before this case took place, and that his claim that these were mere amusements rings false.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932008</id>
	<title>Re:Bart's Unit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264686780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There has to be some sexual suggestion for it to qualify as pornography. A nude picture does not pornography make.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There has to be some sexual suggestion for it to qualify as pornography .
A nude picture does not pornography make .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There has to be some sexual suggestion for it to qualify as pornography.
A nude picture does not pornography make.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930412</id>
	<title>Bart's Unit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264709820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So everyone who owns or has seen the Simpson's movie is liable for child porn?  Is it me or didn't Bart go skateboarding naked in the movie, including showing his "talent".

If I draw two stick figures in a suggestive manner, is that child porn?  How old is a stick figure?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So everyone who owns or has seen the Simpson 's movie is liable for child porn ?
Is it me or did n't Bart go skateboarding naked in the movie , including showing his " talent " .
If I draw two stick figures in a suggestive manner , is that child porn ?
How old is a stick figure ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So everyone who owns or has seen the Simpson's movie is liable for child porn?
Is it me or didn't Bart go skateboarding naked in the movie, including showing his "talent".
If I draw two stick figures in a suggestive manner, is that child porn?
How old is a stick figure?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30935674</id>
	<title>Rule 34?</title>
	<author>GlowinOrb</author>
	<datestamp>1264701660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It kind of makes me wonder if one could craft a 'Rule 34" defense.  The images being created/possessed not so much for the sake of titillation, but to prove that if it exists there is pr0n of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It kind of makes me wonder if one could craft a 'Rule 34 " defense .
The images being created/possessed not so much for the sake of titillation , but to prove that if it exists there is pr0n of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It kind of makes me wonder if one could craft a 'Rule 34" defense.
The images being created/possessed not so much for the sake of titillation, but to prove that if it exists there is pr0n of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30945694</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity.</title>
	<author>Duggeek</author>
	<datestamp>1264700640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you <i>serious?</i> </p><p>Is a heroin addict less likely to violently pursue their next &ldquo;hit&rdquo; just because their last score was cut with ink? Is the pusher or dealer any less guilty than the consumer?</p><p>Mixed metaphors aside, there's a real danger to all this. Let's use the the TLC program, <i> <a href="http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/toddlers-tiaras/about-toddlers-and-tiaras.html" title="discovery.com" rel="nofollow">Toddlers &amp; Tiaras</a> [discovery.com],</i> as a quick example. Does this show have any redeeming entertainment value? The only drop of virtue you could squeeze from that show is a plain and clear message, <i>leave the children alone!</i> Is anyone committing a crime on the show? Technically, no. Even so, do you suppose that message gets through to anyone with pedophilia? I highly doubt it.</p><p>What does this have to do with cartoon kiddie-porn? I'll tell you; it's like how cartoon violence prepares us for the real thing. It's like how watching episodes of <i> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0274294/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">Tom &amp; Jerry</a> [imdb.com] </i> gives us the idea to bring home that mouse from the pet store and drop it in front of the cat, just to see what happens. The fact that it's drawn makes no difference!</p><p>Even in America, consumption of representational media is tantamount to the real thing. That's why <i> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082509/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">Heavy Metal</a> [imdb.com] </i> earned an &ldquo;R&rdquo; rating in 1981, even though there wasn't even one naked woman or eviscerated human in the entire film.</p><p>The point has arisen, how cartoon children are not, in fact &ldquo;real&rdquo; children. I disagree. Maybe the illustrated form of a child isn't connected to any, one child. Consider, then, that the drawn form could be <i>any</i> child... <i>every</i> child... <i>my</i> child... your child. Does that make these men seem any less dangerous than a <i>convicted</i> sex offender? The only real difference is time, and TFA tells us that these men got exactly what they deserved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you serious ?
Is a heroin addict less likely to violently pursue their next    hit    just because their last score was cut with ink ?
Is the pusher or dealer any less guilty than the consumer ? Mixed metaphors aside , there 's a real danger to all this .
Let 's use the the TLC program , Toddlers &amp; Tiaras [ discovery.com ] , as a quick example .
Does this show have any redeeming entertainment value ?
The only drop of virtue you could squeeze from that show is a plain and clear message , leave the children alone !
Is anyone committing a crime on the show ?
Technically , no .
Even so , do you suppose that message gets through to anyone with pedophilia ?
I highly doubt it.What does this have to do with cartoon kiddie-porn ?
I 'll tell you ; it 's like how cartoon violence prepares us for the real thing .
It 's like how watching episodes of Tom &amp; Jerry [ imdb.com ] gives us the idea to bring home that mouse from the pet store and drop it in front of the cat , just to see what happens .
The fact that it 's drawn makes no difference ! Even in America , consumption of representational media is tantamount to the real thing .
That 's why Heavy Metal [ imdb.com ] earned an    R    rating in 1981 , even though there was n't even one naked woman or eviscerated human in the entire film.The point has arisen , how cartoon children are not , in fact    real    children .
I disagree .
Maybe the illustrated form of a child is n't connected to any , one child .
Consider , then , that the drawn form could be any child... every child... my child... your child .
Does that make these men seem any less dangerous than a convicted sex offender ?
The only real difference is time , and TFA tells us that these men got exactly what they deserved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you serious?
Is a heroin addict less likely to violently pursue their next “hit” just because their last score was cut with ink?
Is the pusher or dealer any less guilty than the consumer?Mixed metaphors aside, there's a real danger to all this.
Let's use the the TLC program,  Toddlers &amp; Tiaras [discovery.com], as a quick example.
Does this show have any redeeming entertainment value?
The only drop of virtue you could squeeze from that show is a plain and clear message, leave the children alone!
Is anyone committing a crime on the show?
Technically, no.
Even so, do you suppose that message gets through to anyone with pedophilia?
I highly doubt it.What does this have to do with cartoon kiddie-porn?
I'll tell you; it's like how cartoon violence prepares us for the real thing.
It's like how watching episodes of  Tom &amp; Jerry [imdb.com]  gives us the idea to bring home that mouse from the pet store and drop it in front of the cat, just to see what happens.
The fact that it's drawn makes no difference!Even in America, consumption of representational media is tantamount to the real thing.
That's why  Heavy Metal [imdb.com]  earned an “R” rating in 1981, even though there wasn't even one naked woman or eviscerated human in the entire film.The point has arisen, how cartoon children are not, in fact “real” children.
I disagree.
Maybe the illustrated form of a child isn't connected to any, one child.
Consider, then, that the drawn form could be any child... every child... my child... your child.
Does that make these men seem any less dangerous than a convicted sex offender?
The only real difference is time, and TFA tells us that these men got exactly what they deserved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930506</id>
	<title>MOD PARENT UP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264710840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty insightful if you ask me, especially the part about stick figures.</p><p>If dude has a lawyer worth his/her weight in whatever, the jury will get the same or stronger arguments.</p><p>And no, I didn't rtfa.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty insightful if you ask me , especially the part about stick figures.If dude has a lawyer worth his/her weight in whatever , the jury will get the same or stronger arguments.And no , I did n't rtfa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty insightful if you ask me, especially the part about stick figures.If dude has a lawyer worth his/her weight in whatever, the jury will get the same or stronger arguments.And no, I didn't rtfa.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931068</id>
	<title>perverted justice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264674480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So this poor man got a \_real\_ penalty for an imaginary crime committed against non existing persons. This is nothing more than thought crime, and he is a thought criminal, happy new year 1984.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So this poor man got a \ _real \ _ penalty for an imaginary crime committed against non existing persons .
This is nothing more than thought crime , and he is a thought criminal , happy new year 1984 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this poor man got a \_real\_ penalty for an imaginary crime committed against non existing persons.
This is nothing more than thought crime, and he is a thought criminal, happy new year 1984.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932104</id>
	<title>So you can go to jail for owning this CD?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264687620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, what happens if you own this CD?</p><p>http://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/y-no-pasa-nada/id111243719</p><p>(SFW as it is a bit censored in iTunes... but you can tell what is going on... hint: The one at the left is Heidi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi,\_Girl\_of\_the\_Alps), and the ones at the right are Peter and the dog...</p><p>I remember seeing it in several stores in Spain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what happens if you own this CD ? http : //itunes.apple.com/gb/album/y-no-pasa-nada/id111243719 ( SFW as it is a bit censored in iTunes... but you can tell what is going on... hint : The one at the left is Heidi ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi , \ _Girl \ _of \ _the \ _Alps ) , and the ones at the right are Peter and the dog...I remember seeing it in several stores in Spain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what happens if you own this CD?http://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/y-no-pasa-nada/id111243719(SFW as it is a bit censored in iTunes... but you can tell what is going on... hint: The one at the left is Heidi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi,\_Girl\_of\_the\_Alps), and the ones at the right are Peter and the dog...I remember seeing it in several stores in Spain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931124</id>
	<title>Re:Not any more</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264675080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>After their prison stay, they'll both have to register as sex offenders.</i> </p><p>And, considering the woeful state of protection of incarcerated people, they'll be seen fully nude and likely actually molested while doing their time. ("Hey, bitch, I want to see what you sent a picture of to your boyfriend.")</p><p>Beautiful fucking logic, judge. They ought to go after <i> <b>your</b> </i> job for participating in real "distribution".</p><p>Will anyone be surprised if someone goes after all parties involved in this abortion of justice?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After their prison stay , they 'll both have to register as sex offenders .
And , considering the woeful state of protection of incarcerated people , they 'll be seen fully nude and likely actually molested while doing their time .
( " Hey , bitch , I want to see what you sent a picture of to your boyfriend .
" ) Beautiful fucking logic , judge .
They ought to go after your job for participating in real " distribution " .Will anyone be surprised if someone goes after all parties involved in this abortion of justice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After their prison stay, they'll both have to register as sex offenders.
And, considering the woeful state of protection of incarcerated people, they'll be seen fully nude and likely actually molested while doing their time.
("Hey, bitch, I want to see what you sent a picture of to your boyfriend.
")Beautiful fucking logic, judge.
They ought to go after  your  job for participating in real "distribution".Will anyone be surprised if someone goes after all parties involved in this abortion of justice?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933362</id>
	<title>Re:Bart's Unit</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1264694880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So everyone who owns or has seen the Simpson's movie is liable for child porn?  Is it me or didn't Bart go skateboarding naked in the movie, including showing his "talent".</p><p>If I draw two stick figures in a suggestive manner, is that child porn?  How old is a stick figure?</p></div><p>The stick figures are old enough to do this:</p><p><a href="http://www.fliptomania.com/shop/product/132.html" title="fliptomania.com">http://www.fliptomania.com/shop/product/132.html</a> [fliptomania.com]</p><p>I hope that the male stick figure applied the formula:</p><p>B4I4Q, RU/18, QT pi?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So everyone who owns or has seen the Simpson 's movie is liable for child porn ?
Is it me or did n't Bart go skateboarding naked in the movie , including showing his " talent " .If I draw two stick figures in a suggestive manner , is that child porn ?
How old is a stick figure ? The stick figures are old enough to do this : http : //www.fliptomania.com/shop/product/132.html [ fliptomania.com ] I hope that the male stick figure applied the formula : B4I4Q , RU/18 , QT pi ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So everyone who owns or has seen the Simpson's movie is liable for child porn?
Is it me or didn't Bart go skateboarding naked in the movie, including showing his "talent".If I draw two stick figures in a suggestive manner, is that child porn?
How old is a stick figure?The stick figures are old enough to do this:http://www.fliptomania.com/shop/product/132.html [fliptomania.com]I hope that the male stick figure applied the formula:B4I4Q, RU/18, QT pi?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30959820</id>
	<title>It's all just a tool</title>
	<author>okmijnuhb</author>
	<datestamp>1264792080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a tool used to pry your freedom and liberties from your cold dead hands. <br>
Or actually, more like surrender your liberties willingly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a tool used to pry your freedom and liberties from your cold dead hands .
Or actually , more like surrender your liberties willingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a tool used to pry your freedom and liberties from your cold dead hands.
Or actually, more like surrender your liberties willingly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933042</id>
	<title>So much wrong with this</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1264693380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone is so quick to pass judgment on sex offenders; yet there are no sources for finding help before a crime is committed.  Where is the 1-800 number to get help if you might be struggling with sex issues?  You can go to AA if you're an alcoholic, but what if you have an odd sex fetish?  Just looking for help and you're already guilty of a crime, which by the way makes it less likely to look for help turning the deviant inward away from help where they are more likely to commit a crime.  Sex offenders are just acting on a basic need (eat, sleep, reproduce); they just can't control a primal instinct.  Most just need some help dealing with hormonal imbalances, some so much so that they need to be locked up, but that is a very small minority.<br>
<br>
People are so offended by the act that they are blind to real issues.  The sex offenders need help just as much as the victims; but where is the outcry to help these people before they commit a crime?  Everyone just wants to string up these people, who in many cases are productive members of society and can be helped.  This grand inquisition on the internet for pedophiles is actually causing more harm as it shames people away from the help they need.  I'm not saying the act isn't horrible, but I'm saying the offenders need the help as much as the victims.  If you helped the offenders you could save many, if not most, of the victims from ever being abused in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone is so quick to pass judgment on sex offenders ; yet there are no sources for finding help before a crime is committed .
Where is the 1-800 number to get help if you might be struggling with sex issues ?
You can go to AA if you 're an alcoholic , but what if you have an odd sex fetish ?
Just looking for help and you 're already guilty of a crime , which by the way makes it less likely to look for help turning the deviant inward away from help where they are more likely to commit a crime .
Sex offenders are just acting on a basic need ( eat , sleep , reproduce ) ; they just ca n't control a primal instinct .
Most just need some help dealing with hormonal imbalances , some so much so that they need to be locked up , but that is a very small minority .
People are so offended by the act that they are blind to real issues .
The sex offenders need help just as much as the victims ; but where is the outcry to help these people before they commit a crime ?
Everyone just wants to string up these people , who in many cases are productive members of society and can be helped .
This grand inquisition on the internet for pedophiles is actually causing more harm as it shames people away from the help they need .
I 'm not saying the act is n't horrible , but I 'm saying the offenders need the help as much as the victims .
If you helped the offenders you could save many , if not most , of the victims from ever being abused in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone is so quick to pass judgment on sex offenders; yet there are no sources for finding help before a crime is committed.
Where is the 1-800 number to get help if you might be struggling with sex issues?
You can go to AA if you're an alcoholic, but what if you have an odd sex fetish?
Just looking for help and you're already guilty of a crime, which by the way makes it less likely to look for help turning the deviant inward away from help where they are more likely to commit a crime.
Sex offenders are just acting on a basic need (eat, sleep, reproduce); they just can't control a primal instinct.
Most just need some help dealing with hormonal imbalances, some so much so that they need to be locked up, but that is a very small minority.
People are so offended by the act that they are blind to real issues.
The sex offenders need help just as much as the victims; but where is the outcry to help these people before they commit a crime?
Everyone just wants to string up these people, who in many cases are productive members of society and can be helped.
This grand inquisition on the internet for pedophiles is actually causing more harm as it shames people away from the help they need.
I'm not saying the act isn't horrible, but I'm saying the offenders need the help as much as the victims.
If you helped the offenders you could save many, if not most, of the victims from ever being abused in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931746</id>
	<title>Your children are porn stars now!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264683360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People who have children are aiding and abetting child pornographers by producing potential child porn models. They indulge in home porn shows when they bathe their children and offer provoking glimpses of young flesh when they flaunt their kids at the seaside. Outrageous!</p><p>Well, I don't see it like that, but with the aid of a twisted mind, I can see how the folks who want to ban cartoons of children might be working towards that conclusion. The ban and control brigade are just as sick as the paedophiles they claim to abhor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who have children are aiding and abetting child pornographers by producing potential child porn models .
They indulge in home porn shows when they bathe their children and offer provoking glimpses of young flesh when they flaunt their kids at the seaside .
Outrageous ! Well , I do n't see it like that , but with the aid of a twisted mind , I can see how the folks who want to ban cartoons of children might be working towards that conclusion .
The ban and control brigade are just as sick as the paedophiles they claim to abhor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who have children are aiding and abetting child pornographers by producing potential child porn models.
They indulge in home porn shows when they bathe their children and offer provoking glimpses of young flesh when they flaunt their kids at the seaside.
Outrageous!Well, I don't see it like that, but with the aid of a twisted mind, I can see how the folks who want to ban cartoons of children might be working towards that conclusion.
The ban and control brigade are just as sick as the paedophiles they claim to abhor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932986</id>
	<title>Re:Simpsons Already Did It!</title>
	<author>hamburger lady</author>
	<datestamp>1264693140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that and they showed bart's ding-a-ling in the beginning of the movie. oh crap, now i haveta go burn the DVD before the cops show up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that and they showed bart 's ding-a-ling in the beginning of the movie .
oh crap , now i haveta go burn the DVD before the cops show up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that and they showed bart's ding-a-ling in the beginning of the movie.
oh crap, now i haveta go burn the DVD before the cops show up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930958</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264673400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Ridiculous.</i> </p><p>Thought crime -- pure and simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ridiculous .
Thought crime -- pure and simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ridiculous.
Thought crime -- pure and simple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932022</id>
	<title>Re:Cartoon porn is still porn</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1264686960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, there's a big massive flaw in your theory: you assume that the folks who passed this law plan that far ahead.</p><p>What really happens is much much simpler: Someone proposes a measure that they claim is to "stop child porn", and everyone supports it because otherwise their political opponents could claim they support child porn.</p><p>And I should also mention that given this standard, anyone viewing a Greek kouros statue (or for that matter many Madonna and Child paintings) is guilty of child porn in this jurisdiction. I hope none of their art galleries have that sort of thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , there 's a big massive flaw in your theory : you assume that the folks who passed this law plan that far ahead.What really happens is much much simpler : Someone proposes a measure that they claim is to " stop child porn " , and everyone supports it because otherwise their political opponents could claim they support child porn.And I should also mention that given this standard , anyone viewing a Greek kouros statue ( or for that matter many Madonna and Child paintings ) is guilty of child porn in this jurisdiction .
I hope none of their art galleries have that sort of thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, there's a big massive flaw in your theory: you assume that the folks who passed this law plan that far ahead.What really happens is much much simpler: Someone proposes a measure that they claim is to "stop child porn", and everyone supports it because otherwise their political opponents could claim they support child porn.And I should also mention that given this standard, anyone viewing a Greek kouros statue (or for that matter many Madonna and Child paintings) is guilty of child porn in this jurisdiction.
I hope none of their art galleries have that sort of thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932046</id>
	<title>Re:never under estimate the stupidity of the law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264687200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>xkcd is going to be illegal in Australia</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>xkcd is going to be illegal in Australia</tokentext>
<sentencetext>xkcd is going to be illegal in Australia</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930148</id>
	<title>Bad write up.</title>
	<author>Lemmy Caution</author>
	<datestamp>1264620120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not what got him registered as a sex offender: he was already registered as a sex offender from a previous case, in which he had been found guilty of actually having child porn (with images of real children) on his computer. The prior conviction is reason for the severe response to the cartoon images. This being the case, his claim that he didn't get sexual titillation from these images rings rather false.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not what got him registered as a sex offender : he was already registered as a sex offender from a previous case , in which he had been found guilty of actually having child porn ( with images of real children ) on his computer .
The prior conviction is reason for the severe response to the cartoon images .
This being the case , his claim that he did n't get sexual titillation from these images rings rather false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not what got him registered as a sex offender: he was already registered as a sex offender from a previous case, in which he had been found guilty of actually having child porn (with images of real children) on his computer.
The prior conviction is reason for the severe response to the cartoon images.
This being the case, his claim that he didn't get sexual titillation from these images rings rather false.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931536</id>
	<title>Re:A fine line has been drawn</title>
	<author>potpie</author>
	<datestamp>1264680000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Think about this too:<br>
Presumably we cannot be convicted for our thoughts. So clearly nobody can be arrested for just THINKING about what child pornography would look like, even though it's a pretty deviant thought. Let's say he drew this kind of cartoon himself, alone, just for himself, and the police found it while searching for ACTUAL crime. Would the courts go so far as to put a man in jail for drawing a picture? And what, really, is the difference between that and this? He did have to FIND the picture, and he did apparently KEEP the picture, but it still seems like a stretch. Honestly I don't even think the Simpsons look human enough. And there's another thing, what about anthropomorphic pornography? Would they have to calculate the presumed age of the fictional victims in dog/cat/furry years?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think about this too : Presumably we can not be convicted for our thoughts .
So clearly nobody can be arrested for just THINKING about what child pornography would look like , even though it 's a pretty deviant thought .
Let 's say he drew this kind of cartoon himself , alone , just for himself , and the police found it while searching for ACTUAL crime .
Would the courts go so far as to put a man in jail for drawing a picture ?
And what , really , is the difference between that and this ?
He did have to FIND the picture , and he did apparently KEEP the picture , but it still seems like a stretch .
Honestly I do n't even think the Simpsons look human enough .
And there 's another thing , what about anthropomorphic pornography ?
Would they have to calculate the presumed age of the fictional victims in dog/cat/furry years ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think about this too:
Presumably we cannot be convicted for our thoughts.
So clearly nobody can be arrested for just THINKING about what child pornography would look like, even though it's a pretty deviant thought.
Let's say he drew this kind of cartoon himself, alone, just for himself, and the police found it while searching for ACTUAL crime.
Would the courts go so far as to put a man in jail for drawing a picture?
And what, really, is the difference between that and this?
He did have to FIND the picture, and he did apparently KEEP the picture, but it still seems like a stretch.
Honestly I don't even think the Simpsons look human enough.
And there's another thing, what about anthropomorphic pornography?
Would they have to calculate the presumed age of the fictional victims in dog/cat/furry years?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930558</id>
	<title>Re:Cartoon porn is still porn</title>
	<author>Cimexus</author>
	<datestamp>1264711440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The relevant Australian law requires a depiction of a person that is, or appears to be, under 18. Maggie/Lisa/Bart satisfy this definition by any 'reasonable person's' standard (which is what the law looks at in interpreting this kind of stuff).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The relevant Australian law requires a depiction of a person that is , or appears to be , under 18 .
Maggie/Lisa/Bart satisfy this definition by any 'reasonable person 's ' standard ( which is what the law looks at in interpreting this kind of stuff ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The relevant Australian law requires a depiction of a person that is, or appears to be, under 18.
Maggie/Lisa/Bart satisfy this definition by any 'reasonable person's' standard (which is what the law looks at in interpreting this kind of stuff).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930134</id>
	<title>First Pr0n</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264619820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All your hentai are belong to us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All your hentai are belong to us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All your hentai are belong to us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931106</id>
	<title>Re:Aren't child pornography for protecting childre</title>
	<author>maxm</author>
	<datestamp>1264674780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that the cartoon clause are there because child pornographers used photoshop filters on real child pornography to make it look like cartoons To avoid prosecution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that the cartoon clause are there because child pornographers used photoshop filters on real child pornography to make it look like cartoons To avoid prosecution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that the cartoon clause are there because child pornographers used photoshop filters on real child pornography to make it look like cartoons To avoid prosecution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930210</id>
	<title>Re:Cartoon porn is still porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264620960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Interesting... a cartoon character rises to the level of <b>person</b> now. Whoever knew..
I suppose it is the next logical step.
</p><p>
How do you measure the 'age' of a cartoon character, I wonder.
</p><p>
Is it whatever age the author says it is....
or does the jury have to make some sort of subjective determination based on carefully examining the imagery to make a judgement on the appearance of the images filed as evidence?
</p><p>
With careful consideration as to not be prejudicial against midgets and people who appear much younger than their actual age.
</p><p>
Next step is to extend the law to include imagery depicting violence as well.
</p><p>
And then expand the age a little bit...  age under 21  instead of 18.
</p><p>
And then extend the law to include images depicting not just porn and violent acts, but drug usage also
</p><p>
Then extend the age rule a little bit... persons under age 25 instead of 21.
</p><p>
Then expand the scope a little bit... images depicting any crimes or hostile activities at all against such persons.
</p><p>
Then extend the age rule a little bit... persons under 30 instead of age 25.
</p><p>
Then expand the scope a little bit... images depicting or showing anything the least bit offensive to community values to persons depicted.
</p><p>
Then remove the age limit entirely.
</p><p>
Then expand the scope a bit to include anything disruptive to the civil order, government business, or disparaging to authority.
</p><p>
Next make it retroactive, include text, writings, blog posts, opinion columns, as well as images.   And anything offensive to even dead people or non-governmental highly-regarded entities.
Increase the penalty for some years of confinement to permanent imprisonment, and eventual execution.
</p><p>
Wow, instant censorship (in 10 steps)
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting... a cartoon character rises to the level of person now .
Whoever knew. . I suppose it is the next logical step .
How do you measure the 'age ' of a cartoon character , I wonder .
Is it whatever age the author says it is... . or does the jury have to make some sort of subjective determination based on carefully examining the imagery to make a judgement on the appearance of the images filed as evidence ?
With careful consideration as to not be prejudicial against midgets and people who appear much younger than their actual age .
Next step is to extend the law to include imagery depicting violence as well .
And then expand the age a little bit... age under 21 instead of 18 .
And then extend the law to include images depicting not just porn and violent acts , but drug usage also Then extend the age rule a little bit... persons under age 25 instead of 21 .
Then expand the scope a little bit... images depicting any crimes or hostile activities at all against such persons .
Then extend the age rule a little bit... persons under 30 instead of age 25 .
Then expand the scope a little bit... images depicting or showing anything the least bit offensive to community values to persons depicted .
Then remove the age limit entirely .
Then expand the scope a bit to include anything disruptive to the civil order , government business , or disparaging to authority .
Next make it retroactive , include text , writings , blog posts , opinion columns , as well as images .
And anything offensive to even dead people or non-governmental highly-regarded entities .
Increase the penalty for some years of confinement to permanent imprisonment , and eventual execution .
Wow , instant censorship ( in 10 steps )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Interesting... a cartoon character rises to the level of person now.
Whoever knew..
I suppose it is the next logical step.
How do you measure the 'age' of a cartoon character, I wonder.
Is it whatever age the author says it is....
or does the jury have to make some sort of subjective determination based on carefully examining the imagery to make a judgement on the appearance of the images filed as evidence?
With careful consideration as to not be prejudicial against midgets and people who appear much younger than their actual age.
Next step is to extend the law to include imagery depicting violence as well.
And then expand the age a little bit...  age under 21  instead of 18.
And then extend the law to include images depicting not just porn and violent acts, but drug usage also

Then extend the age rule a little bit... persons under age 25 instead of 21.
Then expand the scope a little bit... images depicting any crimes or hostile activities at all against such persons.
Then extend the age rule a little bit... persons under 30 instead of age 25.
Then expand the scope a little bit... images depicting or showing anything the least bit offensive to community values to persons depicted.
Then remove the age limit entirely.
Then expand the scope a bit to include anything disruptive to the civil order, government business, or disparaging to authority.
Next make it retroactive, include text, writings, blog posts, opinion columns, as well as images.
And anything offensive to even dead people or non-governmental highly-regarded entities.
Increase the penalty for some years of confinement to permanent imprisonment, and eventual execution.
Wow, instant censorship (in 10 steps)
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931176</id>
	<title>Re:Cartoon porn is still porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264675740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was amazed to find out Bart's voice is a woman.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was amazed to find out Bart 's voice is a woman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was amazed to find out Bart's voice is a woman.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931420</id>
	<title>Re:never under estimate the stupidity of the law</title>
	<author>ydrol</author>
	<datestamp>1264678560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only if the head/body size ratio is larger than normal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only if the head/body size ratio is larger than normal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only if the head/body size ratio is larger than normal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30934640</id>
	<title>NOT real children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A few of you here seem to think this guy is some type of pervert.  Lets get this straight now.  They are NOT real children nor do they even look like real children.</p><p>The pictures are meant as a joke and just because somebody finds them funny does NOT make them a pedophile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few of you here seem to think this guy is some type of pervert .
Lets get this straight now .
They are NOT real children nor do they even look like real children.The pictures are meant as a joke and just because somebody finds them funny does NOT make them a pedophile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few of you here seem to think this guy is some type of pervert.
Lets get this straight now.
They are NOT real children nor do they even look like real children.The pictures are meant as a joke and just because somebody finds them funny does NOT make them a pedophile.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30944770</id>
	<title>Re:All the simpsons are "legal" adults</title>
	<author>psithurism</author>
	<datestamp>1264690860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I were this guy, this would be my defense...</p><p>The Simpsons have existed for 20+ years. Yes, they may have childlike features, but they are all past the age of consent, even Maggie.</p></div><p>This is Australia silly; they're banning small breasts in porn because it looks like child porn.  <a href="http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/australia-bans-small-breasts/" title="somebodyth...ildren.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/australia-bans-small-breasts/</a> [somebodyth...ildren.com]</p><p>If you read that article, ANYTHING that resembles child porn to a child-porn-centered-classifier is illegal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were this guy , this would be my defense...The Simpsons have existed for 20 + years .
Yes , they may have childlike features , but they are all past the age of consent , even Maggie.This is Australia silly ; they 're banning small breasts in porn because it looks like child porn .
http : //www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/australia-bans-small-breasts/ [ somebodyth...ildren.com ] If you read that article , ANYTHING that resembles child porn to a child-porn-centered-classifier is illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were this guy, this would be my defense...The Simpsons have existed for 20+ years.
Yes, they may have childlike features, but they are all past the age of consent, even Maggie.This is Australia silly; they're banning small breasts in porn because it looks like child porn.
http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/australia-bans-small-breasts/ [somebodyth...ildren.com]If you read that article, ANYTHING that resembles child porn to a child-porn-centered-classifier is illegal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930714</id>
	<title>Re:Bad write up.</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1264669980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn. But, the 'cartoon porn' court ruling should be thrown out, and the supreme court judge(s) should be removed from the bench.</p></div><p>Or, replaced with cartoon judges.</p><p>If cartoons of kiddie porn are the equivalent of actual kiddie porn, then cartoons of judges are surely the equivalent of actual judges.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn .
But , the 'cartoon porn ' court ruling should be thrown out , and the supreme court judge ( s ) should be removed from the bench.Or , replaced with cartoon judges.If cartoons of kiddie porn are the equivalent of actual kiddie porn , then cartoons of judges are surely the equivalent of actual judges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn.
But, the 'cartoon porn' court ruling should be thrown out, and the supreme court judge(s) should be removed from the bench.Or, replaced with cartoon judges.If cartoons of kiddie porn are the equivalent of actual kiddie porn, then cartoons of judges are surely the equivalent of actual judges.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932518</id>
	<title>Re:Uh oh, he's a fatty. We'd better put him away.</title>
	<author>Velodra</author>
	<datestamp>1264690320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If a guy tries to abide by a law he got busted for by looking at cartoon child porn instead of real child porn, my first reaction is to support him. Am I crazy?</p></div><p>Yes, but don't worry, the thought police is coming to help you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a guy tries to abide by a law he got busted for by looking at cartoon child porn instead of real child porn , my first reaction is to support him .
Am I crazy ? Yes , but do n't worry , the thought police is coming to help you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a guy tries to abide by a law he got busted for by looking at cartoon child porn instead of real child porn, my first reaction is to support him.
Am I crazy?Yes, but don't worry, the thought police is coming to help you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930738</id>
	<title>Re:Cartoon porn is still porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264670160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they're going to do that, they should at least do it right and extend it to persecute goths, emos, frat boys, politicians, and lawyers.</p><p>I mean, if we're just going by people that are <i>fucked up</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're going to do that , they should at least do it right and extend it to persecute goths , emos , frat boys , politicians , and lawyers.I mean , if we 're just going by people that are fucked up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're going to do that, they should at least do it right and extend it to persecute goths, emos, frat boys, politicians, and lawyers.I mean, if we're just going by people that are fucked up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931468</id>
	<title>Re:Cartoon porn is still porn</title>
	<author>makomk</author>
	<datestamp>1264679040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Under the equivalent UK law, if any aspect of the drawing looks under 18, it's illegal. So you can potentially be convicted of possessing child porn for (say) a drawing of a 23 year old with really tiny breasts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Under the equivalent UK law , if any aspect of the drawing looks under 18 , it 's illegal .
So you can potentially be convicted of possessing child porn for ( say ) a drawing of a 23 year old with really tiny breasts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Under the equivalent UK law, if any aspect of the drawing looks under 18, it's illegal.
So you can potentially be convicted of possessing child porn for (say) a drawing of a 23 year old with really tiny breasts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932608</id>
	<title>ASCII child porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264690740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>---  0<br>-0<br>---  0<br>-0</p><p>That's a 10 year old's penis and an 11 year old's vagina, having sex.  If you separate them, and turn them into flip art, it even becomes animation.</p><p>Congratulations, you've all just downloaded child porn. A police officer is on his way to your house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>--- 0-0--- 0-0That 's a 10 year old 's penis and an 11 year old 's vagina , having sex .
If you separate them , and turn them into flip art , it even becomes animation.Congratulations , you 've all just downloaded child porn .
A police officer is on his way to your house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>---  0-0---  0-0That's a 10 year old's penis and an 11 year old's vagina, having sex.
If you separate them, and turn them into flip art, it even becomes animation.Congratulations, you've all just downloaded child porn.
A police officer is on his way to your house.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30934502</id>
	<title>Re:First Pr0n</title>
	<author>Dishevel</author>
	<datestamp>1264698600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously the Mod who nailed parent as Offtopic is an idiot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously the Mod who nailed parent as Offtopic is an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously the Mod who nailed parent as Offtopic is an idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30947398</id>
	<title>silly feckers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264762560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is ridiculous! What will Australia do next, ban the internet?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...oh, wait a minute.</p><p>If you haven't seen the Chris Morris show called peadogeddon, you can see it here:</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA07Tw4iEFw</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is ridiculous !
What will Australia do next , ban the internet ?
...oh , wait a minute.If you have n't seen the Chris Morris show called peadogeddon , you can see it here : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = fA07Tw4iEFw</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is ridiculous!
What will Australia do next, ban the internet?
...oh, wait a minute.If you haven't seen the Chris Morris show called peadogeddon, you can see it here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA07Tw4iEFw</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30944068</id>
	<title>Deprive the rights of a real person for a fake one</title>
	<author>mykos</author>
	<datestamp>1264685640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While cartoon porn isn't really my thing, I hate to see the civil rights of a real person deprived to protect an imaginary person.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While cartoon porn is n't really my thing , I hate to see the civil rights of a real person deprived to protect an imaginary person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While cartoon porn isn't really my thing, I hate to see the civil rights of a real person deprived to protect an imaginary person.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933586</id>
	<title>Re:A fine line has been drawn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264695900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; His defense that the images were just funny is a total lie -- and other people have pointed this out.</p><p>REALLY?! If you couldn't get 'real' porn or a woman (assuming that is your preference) you would fap to Marge Simpson having sex with Homer instead of Victoria's Secret commercials? Can you say (without feeling silly) that Marge blowing Homer is more exciting than these (assume NSFW, YMMV)<br><a href="http://binside.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/07/victoria\_secret\_karolina.jpg" title="typepad.com" rel="nofollow">http://binside.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/07/victoria\_secret\_karolina.jpg</a> [typepad.com]<br><a href="http://binside.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/07/victoria\_secret\_adriana.jpg" title="typepad.com" rel="nofollow">http://binside.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/07/victoria\_secret\_adriana.jpg</a> [typepad.com]<br>pictures? I for one know which of those I'd prefer...</p><p>I think it's safe to assume that the vast majority of pedophiles would find pictures of real children in swimsuits way more exiting than a cartoons of children having sex. A simple google for "children beach" would likely be more rewarding than those cartoons, and then there's the various 'child model' websites, which are supposedly legal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; His defense that the images were just funny is a total lie -- and other people have pointed this out.REALLY ? !
If you could n't get 'real ' porn or a woman ( assuming that is your preference ) you would fap to Marge Simpson having sex with Homer instead of Victoria 's Secret commercials ?
Can you say ( without feeling silly ) that Marge blowing Homer is more exciting than these ( assume NSFW , YMMV ) http : //binside.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/07/victoria \ _secret \ _karolina.jpg [ typepad.com ] http : //binside.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/07/victoria \ _secret \ _adriana.jpg [ typepad.com ] pictures ?
I for one know which of those I 'd prefer...I think it 's safe to assume that the vast majority of pedophiles would find pictures of real children in swimsuits way more exiting than a cartoons of children having sex .
A simple google for " children beach " would likely be more rewarding than those cartoons , and then there 's the various 'child model ' websites , which are supposedly legal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; His defense that the images were just funny is a total lie -- and other people have pointed this out.REALLY?!
If you couldn't get 'real' porn or a woman (assuming that is your preference) you would fap to Marge Simpson having sex with Homer instead of Victoria's Secret commercials?
Can you say (without feeling silly) that Marge blowing Homer is more exciting than these (assume NSFW, YMMV)http://binside.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/07/victoria\_secret\_karolina.jpg [typepad.com]http://binside.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/07/victoria\_secret\_adriana.jpg [typepad.com]pictures?
I for one know which of those I'd prefer...I think it's safe to assume that the vast majority of pedophiles would find pictures of real children in swimsuits way more exiting than a cartoons of children having sex.
A simple google for "children beach" would likely be more rewarding than those cartoons, and then there's the various 'child model' websites, which are supposedly legal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930332</id>
	<title>Uh oh, he's a fatty. We'd better put him away.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264622280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This seems obvious to me, but I'm not hearing it from anyone else, so I'm just going to be the voice of reason here.</p><p>Guy downloads real child porn (I'm going to assume deliberately). Get's busted for it, because law makes the argument that he's contributing to actual child exploitation.<br>- I don't agree with this, but it could be argued</p><p>Guy downloads cartoon child porn. Get's busted for it, because law makes the argument that he's contributing to actual child exploitation?<br>- Hard to argue the benefit to society here.</p><p>Only possible explanation: It's been made into a thought crime. They just need proof someone has been thinking sexual thoughts about children. And apparently that's been made illegal.</p><p>If a guy tries to abide by a law he got busted for by looking at cartoon child porn instead of real child porn, my first reaction is to support him. Am I crazy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems obvious to me , but I 'm not hearing it from anyone else , so I 'm just going to be the voice of reason here.Guy downloads real child porn ( I 'm going to assume deliberately ) .
Get 's busted for it , because law makes the argument that he 's contributing to actual child exploitation.- I do n't agree with this , but it could be arguedGuy downloads cartoon child porn .
Get 's busted for it , because law makes the argument that he 's contributing to actual child exploitation ? - Hard to argue the benefit to society here.Only possible explanation : It 's been made into a thought crime .
They just need proof someone has been thinking sexual thoughts about children .
And apparently that 's been made illegal.If a guy tries to abide by a law he got busted for by looking at cartoon child porn instead of real child porn , my first reaction is to support him .
Am I crazy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems obvious to me, but I'm not hearing it from anyone else, so I'm just going to be the voice of reason here.Guy downloads real child porn (I'm going to assume deliberately).
Get's busted for it, because law makes the argument that he's contributing to actual child exploitation.- I don't agree with this, but it could be arguedGuy downloads cartoon child porn.
Get's busted for it, because law makes the argument that he's contributing to actual child exploitation?- Hard to argue the benefit to society here.Only possible explanation: It's been made into a thought crime.
They just need proof someone has been thinking sexual thoughts about children.
And apparently that's been made illegal.If a guy tries to abide by a law he got busted for by looking at cartoon child porn instead of real child porn, my first reaction is to support him.
Am I crazy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933502</id>
	<title>Re:Cartoon porn is still porn</title>
	<author>ElectricTurtle</author>
	<datestamp>1264695600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read recently that the same has happened in Australia, that adult women with A cups are now illegal in vanilla pr0n. What kind of message does that send to women? That their bodies are so abnormal that images of same are abhorrent threats to social order?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read recently that the same has happened in Australia , that adult women with A cups are now illegal in vanilla pr0n .
What kind of message does that send to women ?
That their bodies are so abnormal that images of same are abhorrent threats to social order ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read recently that the same has happened in Australia, that adult women with A cups are now illegal in vanilla pr0n.
What kind of message does that send to women?
That their bodies are so abnormal that images of same are abhorrent threats to social order?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933572</id>
	<title>However, Bart is not a minor!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264695840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since Bart "first appeared on television in The Tracey Ullman Show short "Good Night" on April 19, 1987," [Wikipedia] he is now at least 22 years old. This, obviously makes him an adult. The argument does not apply to the powerpuff girls (unfortunatly).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since Bart " first appeared on television in The Tracey Ullman Show short " Good Night " on April 19 , 1987 , " [ Wikipedia ] he is now at least 22 years old .
This , obviously makes him an adult .
The argument does not apply to the powerpuff girls ( unfortunatly ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since Bart "first appeared on television in The Tracey Ullman Show short "Good Night" on April 19, 1987," [Wikipedia] he is now at least 22 years old.
This, obviously makes him an adult.
The argument does not apply to the powerpuff girls (unfortunatly).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931064</id>
	<title>The message is clear. Children should wear burkas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264674480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are obviously moving towards a Taliban version of society in which all human flesh must be covered up and no depiction of the human form will be encouraged.</p><p>It isn't a surprise that this has happened in Australia, a country whose government reminds me of the one depicted in the film Idiocracy (no offence to ordinary Australians who).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are obviously moving towards a Taliban version of society in which all human flesh must be covered up and no depiction of the human form will be encouraged.It is n't a surprise that this has happened in Australia , a country whose government reminds me of the one depicted in the film Idiocracy ( no offence to ordinary Australians who ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are obviously moving towards a Taliban version of society in which all human flesh must be covered up and no depiction of the human form will be encouraged.It isn't a surprise that this has happened in Australia, a country whose government reminds me of the one depicted in the film Idiocracy (no offence to ordinary Australians who).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30949268</id>
	<title>Re:Insanity.</title>
	<author>Stressor</author>
	<datestamp>1264780200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Watching simulated murders can be equated with watching nude cartoon characters only if both actions result in an erection.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Watching simulated murders can be equated with watching nude cartoon characters only if both actions result in an erection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Watching simulated murders can be equated with watching nude cartoon characters only if both actions result in an erection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932876</id>
	<title>Wow...Just Wow...</title>
	<author>painehope</author>
	<datestamp>1264692480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
As repulsive as this guy looks (I damn sure wouldn't leave him around a child for 2 seconds - he definitely looks like the child-interested potential paedophile he is), and as much as he deserved his first conviction for possession of actual child pornography (I don't even download pornography for many reasons, of which this is one - I've actually had torrents that said "Goth Chick Likes Cock" or whatever turn out to be "Goth Chick "<i>Of Very Questionable Appearance In Regards To Her Age</i>" Sucks A Cock" and so I ran the "shred" utility about 5 billion times over that section of disk and pretended that I really didn't see that - I might or might not have downloaded something illegal, but I did not keep it in my possession once I realized what it was, not just because it was potentially illegal but because, of age or not, what it purports to depict is close enough to the real thing that it turns my stomach and makes me want to kill someone that is actually doing the illegal stuff, especially when I think about the number of children that just "disappear" every year in the oh-so-civilized U.S.A. and that it could happen to my friends' children, or my own child one day when I have children), which is almost as repulsive an act as distributing it, which in turn in almost as repulsive as producing it (which is a truly heinous act - the only thing worse than rape is the rape or exploitation of children, both of which I consider to be hanging offences).
</p><p>
But one the other side of this very slippery slope is the fact that despite the fact that this guy is undoubtedly one sick fuck, he hasn't molested any children that anyone knows of (I'd be the first to be baying for his blood if he did) and this is <i>a fucking cartoon</i>. Oh, I can guess very readily at his <i>intent</i> (and, unfortunately what his corpulent corpus was doing while watching it - there is such a thing as having too much imagination, folks...I've just discovered that and am looking around the house for sedatives as I write this) while possessing and viewing it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a cartoon, any more than the current drug laws allow people to be arrested for possession or distribution of drugs even if they sell someone a bag of oregano or flour knowing that it's oregano or flour - both types of laws are both silly and a distraction from the real problem (the finding and execution of paedophiles, or instituting a drug policy that works, like decriminalization or legalization and regulation). There are (as anyone who has browsed Internet porn or went to a "24-hour bookstore" can tell you) entire websites and sections of most adult bookstores that cater to selling video that depict young women as being much younger than they are. Turns my stomach, but it's legal (and the consequences of making it illegal are not going to change anything that really matters, like getting the people that are making or doing the real thing, not just some play-acting by some fat guy who should have been shot when he was found in possession of actual child pornography).
</p><p>
And if you go after people that aren't actually breaking any realistic laws (or teenagers that post pictures of themselves having sex on camera - something that I and millions of people my age or older did as a teenagers with age-appropriate partners and just didn't have an all-consuming, hungry Internet to post it on or else I probably would have as would have many of my friends, male and female alike - give a teenager a camera, some vaseline, and a hole drilled in a tree stump and there's going to be something sexual getting filmed, that's the nature of puberty) or are spending your time creating or upholding such silly laws, I have to ask : <b>what are you doing about the <i>actual, verifiable</i> crimes that have been committed..what are you doing about those kids that used to be on the side of milk cartons until there were too many of them for any amount of milk cartons to cover?</b> Why does the U.S. alone have something like almost 100K children a year disappear and n</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As repulsive as this guy looks ( I damn sure would n't leave him around a child for 2 seconds - he definitely looks like the child-interested potential paedophile he is ) , and as much as he deserved his first conviction for possession of actual child pornography ( I do n't even download pornography for many reasons , of which this is one - I 've actually had torrents that said " Goth Chick Likes Cock " or whatever turn out to be " Goth Chick " Of Very Questionable Appearance In Regards To Her Age " Sucks A Cock " and so I ran the " shred " utility about 5 billion times over that section of disk and pretended that I really did n't see that - I might or might not have downloaded something illegal , but I did not keep it in my possession once I realized what it was , not just because it was potentially illegal but because , of age or not , what it purports to depict is close enough to the real thing that it turns my stomach and makes me want to kill someone that is actually doing the illegal stuff , especially when I think about the number of children that just " disappear " every year in the oh-so-civilized U.S.A. and that it could happen to my friends ' children , or my own child one day when I have children ) , which is almost as repulsive an act as distributing it , which in turn in almost as repulsive as producing it ( which is a truly heinous act - the only thing worse than rape is the rape or exploitation of children , both of which I consider to be hanging offences ) .
But one the other side of this very slippery slope is the fact that despite the fact that this guy is undoubtedly one sick fuck , he has n't molested any children that anyone knows of ( I 'd be the first to be baying for his blood if he did ) and this is a fucking cartoon .
Oh , I can guess very readily at his intent ( and , unfortunately what his corpulent corpus was doing while watching it - there is such a thing as having too much imagination , folks...I 've just discovered that and am looking around the house for sedatives as I write this ) while possessing and viewing it , but that does n't change the fact that it 's a cartoon , any more than the current drug laws allow people to be arrested for possession or distribution of drugs even if they sell someone a bag of oregano or flour knowing that it 's oregano or flour - both types of laws are both silly and a distraction from the real problem ( the finding and execution of paedophiles , or instituting a drug policy that works , like decriminalization or legalization and regulation ) .
There are ( as anyone who has browsed Internet porn or went to a " 24-hour bookstore " can tell you ) entire websites and sections of most adult bookstores that cater to selling video that depict young women as being much younger than they are .
Turns my stomach , but it 's legal ( and the consequences of making it illegal are not going to change anything that really matters , like getting the people that are making or doing the real thing , not just some play-acting by some fat guy who should have been shot when he was found in possession of actual child pornography ) .
And if you go after people that are n't actually breaking any realistic laws ( or teenagers that post pictures of themselves having sex on camera - something that I and millions of people my age or older did as a teenagers with age-appropriate partners and just did n't have an all-consuming , hungry Internet to post it on or else I probably would have as would have many of my friends , male and female alike - give a teenager a camera , some vaseline , and a hole drilled in a tree stump and there 's going to be something sexual getting filmed , that 's the nature of puberty ) or are spending your time creating or upholding such silly laws , I have to ask : what are you doing about the actual , verifiable crimes that have been committed..what are you doing about those kids that used to be on the side of milk cartons until there were too many of them for any amount of milk cartons to cover ?
Why does the U.S. alone have something like almost 100K children a year disappear and n</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
As repulsive as this guy looks (I damn sure wouldn't leave him around a child for 2 seconds - he definitely looks like the child-interested potential paedophile he is), and as much as he deserved his first conviction for possession of actual child pornography (I don't even download pornography for many reasons, of which this is one - I've actually had torrents that said "Goth Chick Likes Cock" or whatever turn out to be "Goth Chick "Of Very Questionable Appearance In Regards To Her Age" Sucks A Cock" and so I ran the "shred" utility about 5 billion times over that section of disk and pretended that I really didn't see that - I might or might not have downloaded something illegal, but I did not keep it in my possession once I realized what it was, not just because it was potentially illegal but because, of age or not, what it purports to depict is close enough to the real thing that it turns my stomach and makes me want to kill someone that is actually doing the illegal stuff, especially when I think about the number of children that just "disappear" every year in the oh-so-civilized U.S.A. and that it could happen to my friends' children, or my own child one day when I have children), which is almost as repulsive an act as distributing it, which in turn in almost as repulsive as producing it (which is a truly heinous act - the only thing worse than rape is the rape or exploitation of children, both of which I consider to be hanging offences).
But one the other side of this very slippery slope is the fact that despite the fact that this guy is undoubtedly one sick fuck, he hasn't molested any children that anyone knows of (I'd be the first to be baying for his blood if he did) and this is a fucking cartoon.
Oh, I can guess very readily at his intent (and, unfortunately what his corpulent corpus was doing while watching it - there is such a thing as having too much imagination, folks...I've just discovered that and am looking around the house for sedatives as I write this) while possessing and viewing it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a cartoon, any more than the current drug laws allow people to be arrested for possession or distribution of drugs even if they sell someone a bag of oregano or flour knowing that it's oregano or flour - both types of laws are both silly and a distraction from the real problem (the finding and execution of paedophiles, or instituting a drug policy that works, like decriminalization or legalization and regulation).
There are (as anyone who has browsed Internet porn or went to a "24-hour bookstore" can tell you) entire websites and sections of most adult bookstores that cater to selling video that depict young women as being much younger than they are.
Turns my stomach, but it's legal (and the consequences of making it illegal are not going to change anything that really matters, like getting the people that are making or doing the real thing, not just some play-acting by some fat guy who should have been shot when he was found in possession of actual child pornography).
And if you go after people that aren't actually breaking any realistic laws (or teenagers that post pictures of themselves having sex on camera - something that I and millions of people my age or older did as a teenagers with age-appropriate partners and just didn't have an all-consuming, hungry Internet to post it on or else I probably would have as would have many of my friends, male and female alike - give a teenager a camera, some vaseline, and a hole drilled in a tree stump and there's going to be something sexual getting filmed, that's the nature of puberty) or are spending your time creating or upholding such silly laws, I have to ask : what are you doing about the actual, verifiable crimes that have been committed..what are you doing about those kids that used to be on the side of milk cartons until there were too many of them for any amount of milk cartons to cover?
Why does the U.S. alone have something like almost 100K children a year disappear and n</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933840</id>
	<title>To change the UK's crazy child porn laws...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264696680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know this story is not UK centric - but we have pretty insane child porn laws too.</p><p>Petition the gov and write to your MPs! It's a small step in the right direction:</p><p>http://www.number10.gov.uk/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this story is not UK centric - but we have pretty insane child porn laws too.Petition the gov and write to your MPs !
It 's a small step in the right direction : http : //www.number10.gov.uk/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this story is not UK centric - but we have pretty insane child porn laws too.Petition the gov and write to your MPs!
It's a small step in the right direction:http://www.number10.gov.uk/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30934798</id>
	<title>Re:Not any more</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1264699500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Murder laws are intended to protect you from being killed. So if you go out and kill someone, clearly we shouldn't arrest you since such a situation would not be designed to protect you from anything.</p></div><p>The proper analogy would be being arrested for attempted murder because of a failed attempt at suicide.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Murder laws are intended to protect you from being killed .
So if you go out and kill someone , clearly we should n't arrest you since such a situation would not be designed to protect you from anything.The proper analogy would be being arrested for attempted murder because of a failed attempt at suicide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Murder laws are intended to protect you from being killed.
So if you go out and kill someone, clearly we shouldn't arrest you since such a situation would not be designed to protect you from anything.The proper analogy would be being arrested for attempted murder because of a failed attempt at suicide.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931144</id>
	<title>Re:Cartoon porn is still porn</title>
	<author>VShael</author>
	<datestamp>1264675260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Interesting... a cartoon character rises to the level of person now. Whoever knew.. I suppose it is the next logical step. </i></p><p>Well, corporations already have the status of persons.</p><p>Who's up for voting-rights for corporations and cartoon characters?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting... a cartoon character rises to the level of person now .
Whoever knew.. I suppose it is the next logical step .
Well , corporations already have the status of persons.Who 's up for voting-rights for corporations and cartoon characters ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting... a cartoon character rises to the level of person now.
Whoever knew.. I suppose it is the next logical step.
Well, corporations already have the status of persons.Who's up for voting-rights for corporations and cartoon characters?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933924</id>
	<title>Sorry - I had to do it</title>
	<author>Alaska Jack</author>
	<datestamp>1264696920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Ever get the urge to look at pornographic drawings of famous cartoon children?"

Hibbert: No.
   Lisa: No.
  Marge: No.
 Wiggum: No.
   Bart: No.
  Patty: No.
 Wiggum: No.
    Ned: No.
  Selma: No.
  Frink: No.
Lovejoy: No.
 Wiggum: Yes.  I mean, no. Heh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ever get the urge to look at pornographic drawings of famous cartoon children ?
" Hibbert : No .
Lisa : No .
Marge : No .
Wiggum : No .
Bart : No .
Patty : No .
Wiggum : No .
Ned : No .
Selma : No .
Frink : No .
Lovejoy : No .
Wiggum : Yes .
I mean , no .
Heh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ever get the urge to look at pornographic drawings of famous cartoon children?
"

Hibbert: No.
Lisa: No.
Marge: No.
Wiggum: No.
Bart: No.
Patty: No.
Wiggum: No.
Ned: No.
Selma: No.
Frink: No.
Lovejoy: No.
Wiggum: Yes.
I mean, no.
Heh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933312</id>
	<title>Calvin golden showers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264694580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now all of my redneck neighbors can be sentenced for the child pornography on the back of their pickup trucks. By the way that Calvin boy sure likes to pee on stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now all of my redneck neighbors can be sentenced for the child pornography on the back of their pickup trucks .
By the way that Calvin boy sure likes to pee on stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now all of my redneck neighbors can be sentenced for the child pornography on the back of their pickup trucks.
By the way that Calvin boy sure likes to pee on stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930466</id>
	<title>Re:Uh oh, he's a fatty. We'd better put him away.</title>
	<author>honkycat</author>
	<datestamp>1264710420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree.  I pretty strongly suspect that most pedophiles would more than gladly give up their urges if it were as simple as that.  It's exactly thought crime --- these laws aim to punish the urge rather than acting upon the urge.  It's ridiculous.  But like other taboo-related crimes, there's enormous political gain to be had from being unjustly "tough" on the crime.  People idealistic enough (and with enough foresight to see the endgame of the proliferation of thought crime laws) to stand up for the rights of these defendants are far too rare to keep things in balance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
I pretty strongly suspect that most pedophiles would more than gladly give up their urges if it were as simple as that .
It 's exactly thought crime --- these laws aim to punish the urge rather than acting upon the urge .
It 's ridiculous .
But like other taboo-related crimes , there 's enormous political gain to be had from being unjustly " tough " on the crime .
People idealistic enough ( and with enough foresight to see the endgame of the proliferation of thought crime laws ) to stand up for the rights of these defendants are far too rare to keep things in balance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
I pretty strongly suspect that most pedophiles would more than gladly give up their urges if it were as simple as that.
It's exactly thought crime --- these laws aim to punish the urge rather than acting upon the urge.
It's ridiculous.
But like other taboo-related crimes, there's enormous political gain to be had from being unjustly "tough" on the crime.
People idealistic enough (and with enough foresight to see the endgame of the proliferation of thought crime laws) to stand up for the rights of these defendants are far too rare to keep things in balance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933888</id>
	<title>this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264696800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm interested in upgrading my twenty eight point eight kilobaud internet connection to a one point five megabit fibre-optic T-1 line. Will you be able to provide an IP router that's compatable with my token ring ethernet LAN configuration?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm interested in upgrading my twenty eight point eight kilobaud internet connection to a one point five megabit fibre-optic T-1 line .
Will you be able to provide an IP router that 's compatable with my token ring ethernet LAN configuration ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm interested in upgrading my twenty eight point eight kilobaud internet connection to a one point five megabit fibre-optic T-1 line.
Will you be able to provide an IP router that's compatable with my token ring ethernet LAN configuration?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931230</id>
	<title>Curiosity?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264676520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now is there anybody on this planet, who, upon first hearing that something like that exists, did not have a look out of sheer curiosity?<br>I mean we even tried to find out what Goatse etc. was. And it&rsquo;s hard to argue that we did do that because we liked what we saw. ^^</p><p>It&rsquo;s that old problem again: Intention.<br>Intention is the line between good and bad.<br>It&rsquo;s the difference between someone who looks at child porn, to check if he can righteously identify and convict the guy in front of him, and someone who looks at it, to see if it&rsquo;s worth paying the rapist in the picture for his &ldquo;service&rdquo;.</p><p>The problem is: How do you find out the intention?<br>Up to now, we simply can&rsquo;t.<br>So the most basic of all laws applies: &ldquo;Not guilty until proven otherwise.&rdquo;<br>Which means, investigators have to prove it, or GTFO.</p><p>Well, maybe in the future we can prove intentions reliably.<br>But even then, we face a bigger problem:<br>There is no such thing as good/bad. There is no such thing as being guilty.<br>It&rsquo;s all cause and effect. <em>Every</em> action can be tracked back to another &ldquo;evil&rdquo; action of a &ldquo;guilty&rdquo; one. Until you end up with wars, prehistoric conflicts, and natural selection / fights for resources themselves.<br>And then what? Punish nature? For causing it all?<br>The whole theoretic base makes no sense. And only trough sheer ignorance can we, in face of those facts, still go &ldquo;But he did it, he is guilty, punish him!&rdquo;</p><p>In reality, nature has only one resolution for such conflicts: Separation.<br>Nature does not know retaliation and revenge. If two animals are in conflict, the one chases the other one away, and done.<br>The same thing naturally applies here, and nicely fits in our community structures:<br>If anyone does anything that in your own system of values is not acceptable, you end any contact with him.<br>If someone does something that is not acceptable by the rules of your community (e.g. country), you throw him out of the country.</p><p>One example of this, which shows how well this ends, is Australia.<br>It was a British colony for criminals. And now? Next to nobody there is a criminal. They became a valuable part of our global society. And the children are not responsible for the faults of their parents anyway.<br>I say, let&rsquo;s do this! Let&rsquo;s just throw convicted criminals out of the country, and prevent them from coming back.<br>E.g. with a &ldquo;Wanted: Dead! $100,000&rdquo;. There is no reason coming back, if you can just start a new life else where. And other countries certainly won&rsquo;t let him/her in. ^^<br>If there is no land left, I say we make space. In Sibiria. Or in some crap place in the mountains. Hell, most of Australia is unused anyway.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br>As long as they can heal the huge line of cause-and-effect that created the behavior, and live a working society again, this is a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now is there anybody on this planet , who , upon first hearing that something like that exists , did not have a look out of sheer curiosity ? I mean we even tried to find out what Goatse etc .
was. And it    s hard to argue that we did do that because we liked what we saw .
^ ^ It    s that old problem again : Intention.Intention is the line between good and bad.It    s the difference between someone who looks at child porn , to check if he can righteously identify and convict the guy in front of him , and someone who looks at it , to see if it    s worth paying the rapist in the picture for his    service    .The problem is : How do you find out the intention ? Up to now , we simply can    t.So the most basic of all laws applies :    Not guilty until proven otherwise.    Which means , investigators have to prove it , or GTFO.Well , maybe in the future we can prove intentions reliably.But even then , we face a bigger problem : There is no such thing as good/bad .
There is no such thing as being guilty.It    s all cause and effect .
Every action can be tracked back to another    evil    action of a    guilty    one .
Until you end up with wars , prehistoric conflicts , and natural selection / fights for resources themselves.And then what ?
Punish nature ?
For causing it all ? The whole theoretic base makes no sense .
And only trough sheer ignorance can we , in face of those facts , still go    But he did it , he is guilty , punish him !    In reality , nature has only one resolution for such conflicts : Separation.Nature does not know retaliation and revenge .
If two animals are in conflict , the one chases the other one away , and done.The same thing naturally applies here , and nicely fits in our community structures : If anyone does anything that in your own system of values is not acceptable , you end any contact with him.If someone does something that is not acceptable by the rules of your community ( e.g .
country ) , you throw him out of the country.One example of this , which shows how well this ends , is Australia.It was a British colony for criminals .
And now ?
Next to nobody there is a criminal .
They became a valuable part of our global society .
And the children are not responsible for the faults of their parents anyway.I say , let    s do this !
Let    s just throw convicted criminals out of the country , and prevent them from coming back.E.g .
with a    Wanted : Dead !
$ 100,000    . There is no reason coming back , if you can just start a new life else where .
And other countries certainly won    t let him/her in .
^ ^ If there is no land left , I say we make space .
In Sibiria .
Or in some crap place in the mountains .
Hell , most of Australia is unused anyway .
; ) As long as they can heal the huge line of cause-and-effect that created the behavior , and live a working society again , this is a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now is there anybody on this planet, who, upon first hearing that something like that exists, did not have a look out of sheer curiosity?I mean we even tried to find out what Goatse etc.
was. And it’s hard to argue that we did do that because we liked what we saw.
^^It’s that old problem again: Intention.Intention is the line between good and bad.It’s the difference between someone who looks at child porn, to check if he can righteously identify and convict the guy in front of him, and someone who looks at it, to see if it’s worth paying the rapist in the picture for his “service”.The problem is: How do you find out the intention?Up to now, we simply can’t.So the most basic of all laws applies: “Not guilty until proven otherwise.”Which means, investigators have to prove it, or GTFO.Well, maybe in the future we can prove intentions reliably.But even then, we face a bigger problem:There is no such thing as good/bad.
There is no such thing as being guilty.It’s all cause and effect.
Every action can be tracked back to another “evil” action of a “guilty” one.
Until you end up with wars, prehistoric conflicts, and natural selection / fights for resources themselves.And then what?
Punish nature?
For causing it all?The whole theoretic base makes no sense.
And only trough sheer ignorance can we, in face of those facts, still go “But he did it, he is guilty, punish him!”In reality, nature has only one resolution for such conflicts: Separation.Nature does not know retaliation and revenge.
If two animals are in conflict, the one chases the other one away, and done.The same thing naturally applies here, and nicely fits in our community structures:If anyone does anything that in your own system of values is not acceptable, you end any contact with him.If someone does something that is not acceptable by the rules of your community (e.g.
country), you throw him out of the country.One example of this, which shows how well this ends, is Australia.It was a British colony for criminals.
And now?
Next to nobody there is a criminal.
They became a valuable part of our global society.
And the children are not responsible for the faults of their parents anyway.I say, let’s do this!
Let’s just throw convicted criminals out of the country, and prevent them from coming back.E.g.
with a “Wanted: Dead!
$100,000”. There is no reason coming back, if you can just start a new life else where.
And other countries certainly won’t let him/her in.
^^If there is no land left, I say we make space.
In Sibiria.
Or in some crap place in the mountains.
Hell, most of Australia is unused anyway.
;)As long as they can heal the huge line of cause-and-effect that created the behavior, and live a working society again, this is a good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931842</id>
	<title>Pretty stupid to convict someone for this</title>
	<author>strangemachinex</author>
	<datestamp>1264684920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those type of images are kinda funny. I've seen them posted on message boards and various places dozens of times over the years. I don't think Simpson's porn is actually created to arouse anyone, it's just for jokes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those type of images are kinda funny .
I 've seen them posted on message boards and various places dozens of times over the years .
I do n't think Simpson 's porn is actually created to arouse anyone , it 's just for jokes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those type of images are kinda funny.
I've seen them posted on message boards and various places dozens of times over the years.
I don't think Simpson's porn is actually created to arouse anyone, it's just for jokes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30938128</id>
	<title>Re:Bad write up.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264708140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like Judge Doom?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like Judge Doom ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like Judge Doom?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932234</id>
	<title>Re:Uh oh, he's a fatty. We'd better put him away.</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1264688400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>law makes the argument that he's contributing to actual child exploitation.</i></p><p>Well, the argument is generally that where there's a demand, people will step up to supply that demand. It does seem to hold true in most other cases, after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>law makes the argument that he 's contributing to actual child exploitation.Well , the argument is generally that where there 's a demand , people will step up to supply that demand .
It does seem to hold true in most other cases , after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>law makes the argument that he's contributing to actual child exploitation.Well, the argument is generally that where there's a demand, people will step up to supply that demand.
It does seem to hold true in most other cases, after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931932</id>
	<title>Re:Bart's Unit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264686000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that, but major publications here in the UK (such as Max Power magazine..yes i used to read it...) have these pages where you can buy mobile content and even there I have seen some of the aforementioned images....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , but major publications here in the UK ( such as Max Power magazine..yes i used to read it... ) have these pages where you can buy mobile content and even there I have seen some of the aforementioned images... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, but major publications here in the UK (such as Max Power magazine..yes i used to read it...) have these pages where you can buy mobile content and even there I have seen some of the aforementioned images....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933082</id>
	<title>Re:Dilution of "Sex Offender" status</title>
	<author>Thiez</author>
	<datestamp>1264693560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; At this rate there will be so many sex offenders gone through the system in 10 years that it will be viewed as a case of teenage shoplifting is! I don't see how that is good for anyone.</p><p>It's good for the sex offenders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; At this rate there will be so many sex offenders gone through the system in 10 years that it will be viewed as a case of teenage shoplifting is !
I do n't see how that is good for anyone.It 's good for the sex offenders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; At this rate there will be so many sex offenders gone through the system in 10 years that it will be viewed as a case of teenage shoplifting is!
I don't see how that is good for anyone.It's good for the sex offenders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931796</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30944472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30938128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30934574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30941206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30936250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.31000644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30944770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30934920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30934502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30934798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30949268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30936522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30934604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30945694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0112246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931096
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30934574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931468
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930356
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30934502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30935936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30936522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930626
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931796
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933082
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30941206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930898
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30934798
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30934604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30936250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930522
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931174
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931778
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30949268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30945694
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30931414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930228
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930714
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933638
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30938128
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30944472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30932350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930428
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30934920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.31000644
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930336
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30930440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0112246.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30933068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0112246.30944770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
