I'm not condoning this type of thing but the fact that someone could be convicted of a crime because of it is utterly ridiculous. People make drawings of all kinds of crazy stuff, does this mean that the next time an animator kills someone in a cartoon that they should be tried for murder?!?! Because if as the article says "Justice Michael Adams ruled a fictional cartoon character was a "person" " then there are a LOT of people out there in a LOT of trouble.

If they had found genuine child pornography on this guys computer then I would say this was all well and fine, but characters such as the Simpsons don't exactly closely resemble real people. It may point to something deeper with this person or it may not, but the law is not supposed to convict on speculation.

People make drawings of all kinds of crazy stuff, does this mean that the next time an animator kills someone in a cartoon that they should be tried for murder?!?!

I agree, it's a very dangerous precedent.

Was he just drawing cartoons, or was he using children to model in pornographic poses?

He wasn't even drawing the cartoons, they were just ones that are all over the internet. I have personally seen them many times in porn advertisements on web pages that show funny or crude videos or jokes intended for adults. I suppose by this judge's reasoning I am now a pedophile as well.