What's even more ridiculous is the ruling stating that

"In my view, the magistrate was correct in determining that, in respect of both the commonwealth and the NSW offences, the word 'person' included fictional or imaginary characters ...," the judge said
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24767202-2,00.html

So cartoons are people now?

But the simpsons premiered on Jan 14 1990, and so even Maggie Simpson should be well over 18 years old by now. That's not even counting their first appearances on the Tracy Ullman Show in 1987. The fact that they haven't aged at all means that you cannot tell what age they actually are. If their development has been kept back by a coporation for monetary gain, and they have 'rights' as people for the purposes of law, then why can't the NSW courts prosecute FOX for child abuse?

hi to all the forgotten australians

well the way our society is being going they may as well have no laws at all .

i tried to get justice in the sydney supreme court for the rapes and abuse and torture i suffered by two staff employees of daruk boys home . state run institution ,of which the minister for welfare was responable for all us children , as is of today .

im in my late 40's now and i was raped and abused when i was 14 at this boys home by the very people i stated in the court case ,

but as we have it the courts have covered up the rapes and abuse that happend to me , the state crown lawyers even stated the record log books of this institution were either lost missplaced or destroyed, now if the state goverment had nothing to hide surley they would of produced these documents but have made out to the courts they are no longer available,

but if i want i can get who came on the first fleet, and so on

so how is it possable the state goverment D.O.C.S state these records are missing,

im still awaiting a response from the attorney generals office as i asked for help to take the case to the high court but yet have had no contact from them and i have rang on three occassions in the last week ,

the last day for me to lodge to the high court, was 4/12/2008,

so much for help from our goverment , and the attonrey generals office

regards a real victim of child abuse

It seems our courts are more concerned about cartoon characters than real children huffnpuff.

huffnpuff,
You are well off topic. I understand you feel pain but you are letting it drive you and your logic. All it takes is a few wrong people to cover up their misdeeds and records are lost/destroyed et al. That does not imply that DOCS is in on the conspiracy or even incompetent.

We all hoot and holler about paedophiles but to really do much it would take a greater budget and that means taking the money from somewhere else or more taxes and more legislative control all are nearly impossible to implement.

A word from the wise the best thing you can do is take steps to deal with the events and move on. In terms of the tranquillity prayer this is an issue you can’t change. Even if you get ‘justice’ it still won’t help you recover. Sooner or later you’ll have to face the issue that it’s all up to you.
“No matter how well you nurse a grudge it will never get better.”

I've heard about this case.

I believe that the man was fined $3,000
(instead of going to prison). What I
don't understand is how come this case
ever got to court in the first place?

The cartoon was on his computer. So, who
reported it? What's the story?

Can a cartoon character be classified as 'child
pornography?' Can intent to harm be proven
in a case like this?
And whose children was this harming?

None of this makes sense at all.

Perhaps this judge should be retired?
It sounds like he's lost the plot.

Hi Col Rouge.

"Separating "porn" from "kiddie porn"?

There isnt any separation for the two... when it comes to the moral decline of a civilisation.

It maybe that its not illegal to view adult porn... but it sure is morally wrong to partake of the filth when the filth comes down to doing little other than inspiring criminal activity and letchery and disrespect towards women.

Everyone who views porn regularly, is an offender in that they approve of all that porn does in society.

All porners are in their very own, very real way no different from the sex offenders...criminals-by-consent in their support of a product involved in the moral decline of society and offences against the victims of sexual attack.

Its the lust for the porn, that binds the porner to believing otherwise.

A nobler age when men knew the difference between right and wrong... sure is passing.