[Lazamataz]

Well, obviously it's creepy to think of anyone getting their kicks off fake child porn too, even if it doesn't involve an actual child. I think that's what you're feeling.

There ya go. That's what it is. Maybe this legal ruling makes LEGAL sense, but somehow it does not have MORAL clarity.

I dunno. I guess the courts have spoken. And who knows, maybe if the kiddie porn people spend all their time on PhotoShop 6.1, they won't be fondling little Tommy and Tammy down the street.

Just weirds me out, is all.

[DaughterofEve]

No, the decision absolutely stinks. Your reaction is appropriate.

[Sandy]

if the kiddie porn people spend all their time on PhotoShop 6.1, they won't be fondling little Tommy and Tammy down the street.

Bingo.

[Abundy]

Get past the emotion and consider the reason for the law - protecting children from being exploited. To seek to regulate an activity that touches on the First Amendment the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.

With respect to virtual porn there is no child being harmed - the compelling state interest - which is why the law runs afoul of the First Amendment.

Consider how a ruling the other way would allow the proverbial "nose under the tent" in all other areas of life merely to "protect the children."

Law touching on the Second Amendment would exponentially multiply and we would have no recourse left...