| From the article: >Justice Adams said the legislation's main purpose was to combat the direct sexual exploitation and abuse of children that occurs where offensive images of real children are made. If he believes this, then why is he legislating that virtual pornography, in fact even hand drawn, of the Simpsons which bear such little resemblance to real people, never mind actually existing people, is against the law? >But, he said, it was also calculated to deter production of other material, including cartoons, which "can fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children". Was it really? And if so, does he, or the authors of the legislation, have evidence to back up this claim? This seems to be totally unsubstantiated nonsense this judge is saying. And what of fueled demand? The fact that a drawing or story might make someone else do an action is, in my view (and I hope others can agree) not reasonable grounds for illegalising possession or production of that drawing. Unfortunately bone-headed cases and legislation like this have graced the rest of the Commonwealth and various European countries. |