Not quite. This deals with simulated kids involved in simulated sex. Thus far, virtual plaintiffs have no standing in court, Star Trek holodeck characters not withstanding.
Actually, this law extended past real children having "simulated" sex. It included "virtual" children, i.e. computer animation.
The original law was too vague, and if prosecutors wanted to, they could have gone after "Romeo & Juliet" (she was only 13) and movies like "American Beauty" (a deplorable movie: I felt like I needed to take a shower after having seen it). In both cases, an underage girl was involved in sexual activity. However, in AB, the "underage girl" was actually NOT a minor in real life.
I agree with the sentiment that child porn is bad and dangerous, and anyone involved with it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Hell, I'd stand in line and pay a buck to beat a pedophile with a club, just like most of the other Freepers. However, the part of the law that was struck down was a part defining a "thought crime." The criminal act depicted was never committed. Could this later be extended to movies depicting other criminal acts like theft or murder?
I consider this to be yet another tasteless part of defending the rights of others, like hate speech...
Mark