Perhaps the ruling is an attempt to set precedent to deal with the ways in which child pornography is now being 'taught' over the internet. ie There are now animations (ie video cartoons) of how to sexually abuse children:

http://www.oprah.com/slideshow/oprahshow/20080911_tows_predators/3
"Authorities have even discovered videos and manuals created by pedophiles that give instructions on how to molest and rape children just months old and how to get away with the crime. Some videos even use well-known cartoon characters to desensitize the children to rape."

Perhaps these 'how-to' manuals and videos are what the court has in mind in its attempt to "deter production of other material - including cartoons - that … can fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children”?

The learned judge interpreted the available law to arrive at his judgement. It is up to legislators to provide definitions and the judges can only interpret what is there.

As a side issue though I am wondering if the OLO feminists who claimed humour (as defined by the perpetrator!) as a bulletproof defence for the bagging of men however wrong, disgusting and discriminatory, will defend The Simpsons cartoons on the same basis? After all, it was only a joke, right? Here is the previous OLO article:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8228&page=11
The Sisterhood of Men-Baggers : Comments
By Klay Lamprell, published 28/11/2008

Cornflower I think you will find on that thread that posters were arguing that these sorts of jokes are equally directed at men and women and that our perceptions would be skewed depending on the gender of the author coupled with which gender was being lampooned.

As for this issue I purposely refrained from commenting on the earlier thread but my understanding of child pornography is it is not just about harming 'real' children but that images of children having sex is in itself intrinsically harmful. Whether these images are cartoons or real surely is irrelevant.

But no doubt those that use the freedom of speech or anti-censorship at all costs argument to absolve society of any social responsibilty will come out in droves.

Keeping the discussion here on-topic (as forum rules require), it is useful to consider that under the law that the terms 'obscenity', 'erotica','pornography' and 'child pornography' all have definitions.

Australian Institute of Criminology- 'Child Pornography in the Digital Age' (1997). While this information is now a decade old and technology has moved on some it is still relatively pertinant. I suspect the economics of child poronography have changed and I imagine that users and producers of this material are now considerably more skilled in avoiding detection than appeared to be the case at publication.

Definitional Issues:
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/chpornography/#2
Child Pornography in Digital Form:
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/chpornography/#3

This para from the conclusion is interesting:
"If there is any good news about child pornography, it is that it is very difficult to become an unwilling consumer. Child pornography may not be terribly difficult to find in cyberspace, but for the most part, one must know where to go looking for it. The likelihood of stumbling across it unwittingly is slim; of having it thrust upon one against one's will even more so."

Actual possession of it then would indicate the owner is likely to have made choices to take possession of it.

pelican

It is irrelevant if was directed at both genders, the use of 'humour' does not excuse discrimination. Equally, the use of humour does not excuse the child pornography of 'The Simpsons' cartoons.

In both cases there will be some who will claim it is 'merely' humour in bad taste or satire, but it is neither.

At least where a judge is involved rather than a public servant representing a commission there can be some confidence that the final decision will be based on evidence and will be arrived at without fear or favour.

Justice Michael Adams, is guilty of a far worse crime, than the accused Alan McEwen, a Commonwealth entity. He sat without a jury and played at being God. He is daily attempting to pervert the course of justice in respect of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth. He sits under a Pagan Coat of Arms, unless he sits in the King Street Courts, and acts like a Jewish or Muslim person. He is liable to five years imprisonment. http://bar.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/s43.html

Justice Adams has discriminated. He has perverted s 80 Constitution.

The Australian Government must re-establish the Commonwealth. It is forty years since a Judge had to get consent to sit without a jury in Australia. The Australia Act 1986 is an oxymoron the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contradicts. The Covenant reinforces Commonwealth Sovereignty, but Justice Adams has refused to abide its Statutory power.

A Judge cannot be Christian or honest. The systems that work are based on Christianity, on honesty and integrity. All three are missing in New South Wales and Australia. One God, and Christianity means one nation, under Almighty God.

S 39 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and Order 46 Rule 7A Federal Court Rules abolish Christianity, and Justice Michael Adams, should have his backside in the Federal Court of Australia tomorrow as a defendant. He would have a lot of company. Half the Federal Liberal Party front bench, should be called to account with him. For eleven and a half years, they have allowed corruption, vice, and dishonesty to rule Australia, and were rightly consigned into opposition.

One mans opinion should never make law. It did not until 1970 in New South Wales. Even a Council of scholars should not make law. That was abolished by Jesus Christ when he was crucified and came again. Jesus taught that the law must be found by a jury, not a Judge, and that man proposes, God disposes. Only a jury can divine the will of God. Only a pagan sits without one. That is the Law of the Constitution in S 79 of Ch III.