There's a lot not to like about this legislation, but you're way off the mark here. The legislation doesn't impose a generic ban on anything that someone or other considers 'harmful'. It's a raft of quite specific regulatory requirements relating to specific kinds of content. There are certainly arguments to be made against it, but your examples are quite irrelevant.
What's your point? There's no examples of psychological harm under the new legislation because it's new. We can however infer from how the old legislation has been enforced.
It’s not a very specific point of comparison to serve as a response to scott_w’s question. You can infer that legislation is sometimes badly interpreted and badly enforced. I’m sure this new legislation will be badly interpreted and badly enforced in some instances. That doesn't lead us to the sort of over-the-top scenario that briandear was painting.
