The Act determines that classification decisions must be based on the impact of the classifiable elements within the context of the publication being assessed. Should the FPB have gone so far as to restrict viewing of "The Spear" based on the notion that it appeared to have been "unacceptable to the community in general"? The short answer is – no.

As a matter of fact, it was unfounded in law and probably an unconstitutional limitation of the right to freedom of expression. The Board's decision to have classified the painting seem to have been primarily guided by a "mixture of emotions from diverse sections of the populace" and its apparent consideration for the "sensitive adult viewer", fell short of the provisions of the Act and should be viewed as an alarming precedent in the censoring of politically sensitive art.

The FPB's reasons for protecting the nation against "The Spear" were unconvincing at best. What appears to be rather obvious is that the Board had failed to recognise the difference between what was possibly offensive but not harmful - and in doing so had acted in a manner that was not reasonable, necessary or justifiable in an open and democratic society. Their mandate in terms of the Act is to protect children - not "sensitive adult viewer" or their "mixture of emotions".