In Paragraph 37, the judge said this: "Accepting that the word [person] gains its meaning from its context, that context is the protection of children from sexual exploitation and abuse." This is the important point that everyone missed out on. The word person is only interpreted in this way in the context of "protection of children from sexual exploitation and abuse". In other contexts, such as "maim[ing], murder[ing], and otherwise mutilat[ing] our fictional creations", the meaning of the word person as defined in Australian law may well not include fictional persons.

The definition used by the court is intentionally broad in the context of child pornography because the abuse and grooming of children is very, very, VERY, VERY serious business, and the court deemed it appropriate to use such a wide definition. Again, in other contexts, such as the ones that Adams J used as an example early on (in Paragraph 5) in his judgment, that of violence in comic books and video games, the definition is unlikely to reach so far.

Just.. bizarre.