According to Computerworld magazine (which quotes student mag Nexus), a Hamilton video store has been plying customers with a petition in favour of Section 92A, arguing that the Section is a weapon against child pornography.
Disingenuous, eh what? Without wanting to be glib about the welfare of kids - and no THMer is - this isn't the first time that the child porn spectre has been raised to justify measures which curb civil liberties (witness US discourse). I, for one, could cope with having my civil liberties curtailed if it genuinely protected the welfare of children. However, as far as I see, this petition is a rather tasteless use of children's welfare to protect the profits of the home entertainment industry.