This definition of child pornography has been taken to a ridiculous extent. Also, this morning, some UK ISPs decided to censor wikipedia for showing a 1976 album cover that showed a naked girl (in a totally innocent pose).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7770456.stm
Schools will now not post pictures of children on the Internet and some ban parents from taking pictures of school plays in case they are viewed by pedophiles. Fear of pedophilia and terrorism are leading to draconian censorship laws.

You know it's just this sort of thing that gets the pedophiles off too, all this fear mongering and making it that much more of a forbidden fruit. There is a serious problem regarding pedophilia, but not being able to take a picture of your son or daughter or grandchild because there's a fear of a pedophile looking at it is just insane. You might as well tell the kids not to go to school because they will be assaulted if they do. It has to stop somewhere...

What are they to do about medical books for pediatric surgeons and general doctors? Seems rather odd to have to deal with things relating to bodily functions in children without photos.

I remember something about a case in San Francisco where to get after someone it was suggested that they use bathroom photo's of his kids to go after him.

It is a difficult subject in this period of global networking time and cross cultural emphasis on different taboos. I wonder what it would be like to look back at this period 2500 years in the future? What would the Taboo be then...naked left handed aliens?

To be honest, I'm with the judge. Moreover, if you read past the headline, in my opinion he's saying that the cartoons weren't child images, but were likely to lead to them. Surely he wouldn't have let the man off with just a fine if he actually ruled as the headline suggests.

Are there any kind of Constitutional protections in Australia? This is ridiculous!

And you posted this because the US doesn't have silly legal cases?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7771937.stm

Besides, if the characters in the Simpsons are depicted as being 8 and 10 years old, you cannot reasonably think it to be OK for them to be depicted engaged in adult or incestuous scenes.

Just a sec!
Do you commit a crime if you hold data (textual or graphical) of a depiction of a crime?
No
So what's happening here?

I don't here people getting arrested for holding videos of beheading...

Yes there is a constitutional protection in Australia, its called an election.
I don't think the filter will be implemented. There is such a fuss being kicked up that likely the minister will weasel out of the mess he has got himself into. One easy way out for him is to say that the trials currently in progress show that the filtering technology isn't yet up to scratch.
There is a protest this Saturday in all state capital cities to make sure this happens. Here's the details
http://nocensorship.info/main/

"Besides, if the characters in the Simpsons are depicted as being 8 and 10 years old, you cannot reasonably think it to be OK for them to be depicted engaged in adult or incestuous scenes."

But can you reasonably think it's OK for the government to regulate something like that? I totally agree with banning child porn, but his will be used as precedent for all kinds of horrible new judicial fiats.

Sorry to be all quoting, but

"Yes there is a constitutional protection in Australia, its called an election."

But nothing else? The government can do whatever it wants during its term? Really? Aren't there, you know, safeguards like the First and Fourteenth Amendments here?

Invictus, why is it that every fourth US citizen I meet thinks that the world outside the US is like the world inside it, and expresses surprise when they find out it isn't?

I'm surprised that it looks like the government can just pass any law they want without set Constitutional limits. Is that true in Australia?

The government certainly can't pass any law they want, that power is with parliament (equivalent US term is congress). There are a very few constitutional limits, but they don't include anti-censorship. I guess we just trust our parliament with a lot of power and then vote em out if they abuse it. The balance of power in the Australian senate is currently held by minor parties. I'd be surprised if the senate votes for internet censorship. I'm not too worried just yet, but will certainly be attending that protest. Apparently it is a difficult legal question how much power the Australian government can exercise over the ISPs using existing laws.
Anyway for more info on this issue see:
whirlpool.net.au for discussion
and wikipedia for the australian constitution
A massive debate is occurring on whirlpool, well if you can call hundreds of angry Australians saying no a debate, with very few in favour.

So whatever Parliament says goes? My word.

I guess that's the difference between the systems for you. Do you want a Parliament that has almost no limits on its power or a President who can act outside of accountability for an extended duration?

I'm inclined to go for that later, since at least he could be prosecuted for breaking the law later, while a hypothetical tyrannical Parliament isn't doing anything illegal, but that's just me.

This sounds like just another scared-of-my-government rant of the Sicarian style. Let them regulate it, I always say.

Justice Michael Adams concluding a fictional cartoon character is a "person" within the meaning of Commonwealth and NSW laws.

Im going to marry Sailor Moon, fuck yeah!

There a difference between Sicarius' paranoia and a concern over the erosion of liberties. While it looks like a great idea to do as much as possible to stop child porn, the steps necessary to do that set a legal precedent that could be used to justify other, less noble actions.

There's common law jurisdictions for ya. Still beats civil and religious law, though.

I think crimes should really be relative to how much damage they do. It's a bit of a stretch to imagine damage being done by this image. If the argument is that it'll encourage child abuse I think psychiatric help would be a more effective way to handle this than a stiff fine

This doesn't really affect the case much, but maybe someone's interested: This is the week the Aus government is handing out its financial stimulus package in the (in my opinion very silly) way of $1000/individual in a poor family (basically, it's more complex in reality). It'd be odd if the fine was paid directly with public money

And finally it should be noted that the recent Australian censorship plan is being fought against by Telstra; Australia's main (semi-public) Telco, which is a pretty huge blow for it

I should also note that for all those saying this is a huge restriction of freedom, others might say it's the natural balance to a huge increase of freedom which came with the internet's mainstream acceptance. It is now much easier to access whatever information you want

I'm not making a pro-censorship point, I think it should be fought against and that this case is a bad sign, but there can be two sides to this argument

Also (for the US guys out there) I don't know how applicable free speech is to this sort of thing. Would the founding fathers have considered (even very crude) pictures of cartoon kids having sex "free speech"? The US will and has interpreted the constitution as it pleases in the past, I'm not sure how much protection from this sort of thing it provides.

Ultimately if you don't like what's going on vote against it, that's all US and Aus really have in the end; kill all support for the Family First party and the ALP

This plan will be utterly ineffective in fighting child porn, because it will be ridiculously easy to bypass. The government proposes to spend $45 million dollars of its own money which could be far better spent on education about the internet and policing. The real cost will be much higher because ISPs will be forced to pass on costs to their customers.
May be there is another side to the argument, but the other side consists only of ignorance, stupidity, McCarthyism, unreasonable fear, spin, lies and incompetence.

Oh Kestas, if only we still followed the Founders' intentions.

The fact is that free speech doesn't cover child porn, but images just like this have been ruled in the completely opposite way here. Drawings and computer images of children are OK, legally at least, according to our Supreme Court.

Again, I'm not really against the idea of doing a whole bunch to stop child porn, but isn't the issue really to protect the children from that kind of abuse, not punish the pedo in his mom's basement for being aroused? If anything, the market should be flooded with animated child porn so real kids don't get hurt.

I am really troubled that all Australia seems to have as a safeguard to government run amok are elections. What are the chances a government will willingly reduce its power?