Please excuse cross-posting
I have just been very helpfully advised that the NSW decision to which
I was referring is, in fact, available online at:- http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/scjudgments/2008nswsc.nsf/6ccf7431c546464bca2570e6001a45d2/ef4625a9db3003f1ca25751500066d48?OpenDocument
.
Many thanks indeed to James Butler, Librarian at the Supreme Court of
Victoria, Australia.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Ronald Huttner <rshutt@netspace.net.au>
> Date: 8 December 2008 3:20:56 PM
> To: law-lib@ucdavis.edu, "International Law Librarians List (Int-
> Law)" <int-law@CIESIN.COLUMBIA.EDU>
> Subject: [LAW-LIB:57444] Can The Depiction Of Cartoon Characters
> (e.g. "The Simpsons") Engaging In Sexual Acts Constitute Child
> Pornography ?
>
> Please excuse cross-posting
>
> A NSW Supreme Court judge has just upheld a Magistrate's ruling that
> they can. The decision itself does not appear to be available online
> as yet, but there is a report of the case in today's newspaper at http://www.theage.com.au/national/simpsons-cartoon-ripoff-is-child-porn-judge-20081208-6tmk.html
> . Whilst I certainly have no time whatsoever for true child
> pornography, I have to say that I find this decision quite amazing
> and most unsatisfactory. Does any Law-Libber happen to know whether
> this issue has been ruled upon by a court in any other common-law
> based country ? In particular, in New Zealand, the UK, Ireland,
> Canada or the USA ? I'd be fascinated to know what was the outcome.
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Ron Huttner LL.B (Hons)
> (Retired) Barrister, Solicitor, Law Lecturer and Legal Researcher
> Melbourne
> Victoria
> Australia
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 07 2008 - 21:17:58 PST