I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :)

The government picking cases that no-one will object to in order to set things up for future use isn't exactly novel - all you have to do is look at the UK to see how "mission creep" turns what looks to be great at the start into something unhealthy later :P

So it's a little disingenuous to make it about possessing drawings of kiddie bestiality porn.  It's about someone else's morality judging what's acceptable for you in the privacy of your own computer that hasn't harmed, and will not, harm anyone else.

(The argument that such images, even if weird and sick, encourages actual child abuse is about as valid as the claims computer games or TV make kids shoot up their schools - the same connection to reality as political campaign promises)

When you surrender a piece of a right based solely on something so subjective, you can say goodbye to that right altogether because it's a virtual certainty someone, somewhere, will object to something you do that you consider harmless.

Consider the Danish cartoons ... They managed to offend about one and a half billion people, but subjectively, very few people saw the offence claimed - Everyone was jumping on the bandwagon claiming "freedom of speech".

(and Islam is aniconic, so half the artwork here probably qualifies as offensive to many Muslims)

Is Freedom Of Speech really "Freedom of speech only in those things we agree with" ... and if so, who is the "we"?  What do you do if you end up not being part of the "we"? 

You've got a pic on your page (a rather good one, too!) of two women - I think it's Tango? - what would you do if some tinpot dictator in authority who objects to anything implying lesbians decides it's obscene and went after you?

You might think that unlikely, and it probably is.  It shouldn't have to be "probably" or "unlikely", though.

Which probably means there'll be no "real" answer - the kiddie pornographers will use it to validate their crap, which will be used to justify limiting the rights involved, but no-one can say those limits won't be used in the future for things that aren't as hot-button offensive to the community at large.

Maybe it's a cultural thing, I'm coming at this from having escaped the totalitarian democracy the UK has become, and know first hand how the authorities make such reasonable suggestions of limitations then once the "fix" is in suddenly expand it to hit everyone else they find objectionable.

Thanks for the link about Whorley, I didn't know about it, and retract the statement this case sets precedent.  I'll also grant you I need to read more on this particular case to get a better handle on it.