http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/simpsons-powerpuff-girls-porn-nets-jail-time-for-australian.arsNot sure which side I'm on here. Some are arguing that this would only be a precursor to actual child porn, yet I fail to see anyone actually being victimized here (as would be the case with real child porn), so how can you justify punishment? However, he had been sentenced in 2003 after real child porn was found on his computer, so I can understand the judgement itself a little better.
We'll just come right out and say it: some people are into cartoon porn. Heck, even if you're not "into" it, you may have accidentally happened upon it just by running an innocent Google Image Search with SafeSearch turned off (guilty as charged). If you live in Australia, however, you may want to take extra care that your porn stash doesn't contain cartoon imagery of children. A man in Australia was recently convicted for possessing pornographic images depicting characters from The Simpsons and The Powerpuff Girls, and is now a registered sex offender.
Twenty-eight-year-old Kurt James Milner was turned into police for having questionable material on his computer in early 2008, but due to technical difficulties, police were unable to retrieve information from his machine for more than a year. Once they were able to do so, however, they found 64 sexually explicit images depicting characters from the aforementioned TV shows. As many of you Simpsons fans know, there are numerous children who make regular appearances on the show, and they were apparently "not excluded from these images.''