Gibo I look forward to Bart fiddling like Nero in “The Simpsons, the Fall of Rome” episode.

With Homer in Nero’s father’s role not only do we have drunkenness (Duff Beer) and sex and scandal but we get some incest thrown in too… maybe you could offer your cartoon image as a standing for Ned Flanders. . .

As for “The cage and the Bible works well for me”

That’s almost too kinky for words

I agree with rstuart,” I always thought the justification for censoring child pornography was that children were harmed in producing it.”

Now on to South Park …. Does what happens to a cartoon gerbil qualify as animal cruelty ?

There's great stuff in David Marr's book The Henson Case about this issue. The various regulatory bodies are still working on a definition of child porn whereby children are in sexual poses. Community standards appear to have shifted to define child porn as anything that may turn a pedeophile on.

In other words, pedeophiles now determine what we can and cannot see.

Is killing in animations now considered SNUFF?.

A couple of clarifications are required. Firstly, when the Child Pornography laws were drafted in 2005, they very clearly included cartoons.

Secondly, this isn't the first successful prosecution over cartoons. Eg this man posted Manga, a Japanese-style cartoon featuring younger looking characters having sex onto a Thai website. From the report, this convicted trafficker in paedophilia was surprised at being prosecuted:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22029072-5005961,00.html

Finally, as food for thought, I offer you Michelangelo's David. Believe it or not, no one alive has ever this statue front on. The original is in the Galleria dell'Academia in Florence since 1873. It has always been turned to face into a nearby column. But with the aid of lasers and clever computer software, we can for the first time see David as Michelangelo intended. A word of caution though before you click on the link. David was under 18 at the time, so having this image on your computer risks criminal prosecution under our Child Pornography laws:

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/david/David.htm

rstuart,

Let's make unanimous, this is truly an example of irreducibly asinine application of ‘black letter law’ as one can get?

If the defendant was proven to be disseminating this maybe a misdemeanour charge of lewd behaviour et al might be in order but lumping this person in with paedophiles is wanton and malicious over kill. If the crime was recorded will adversely effect his life.

It should be noted that the judge was there to determine if the magistrate’s judgement was correct ‘in law’ not if the case had merit or made sense. In that light one wonders at the mentalities of the complainant, the police and prosecution and the magistrate to waste time on such drivel. These unfunny ‘jokes’ are all over the internet and have been sent to me.

If I were in NSW I would be petitioning the Attorney General and the Premier. It isn’t a matter of liberalism; it’s a matter of nanny state on steroids.

In the final analysis the defendant is guilty in my mind of having bad taste and a juvenile sense of humour neither of which are illegal. The legal definition is wrong, unfair, idiotic and should be amended forthwith to reflect reality.

Disgusted Ant

All most of you folk are thinking is loss of freedoms.

Loss of freedoms is far, far less than having thousands of Dennis Fergusons' running around touching children.

My thinking goes towards 'accessory to the crime'... with just about all of you, so far.