[jwalsh07]

If they are carbon copies of what Congress passed, then they'll be struck down as well.

No kiddin? And guys like you will support that because if the law is something you like then you are for a strong central government dictating to the masses.

Obscenity is in the eyes of the beholder, thats why obscenity laws are left to the states. To me, virtual kiddie porn is an obscenity, period. I'm well aware you have a different opinion and if your fellow citizens agree with you then you can have child porn to your hearts content.

[Redcloak]

As I said, you are confusing this law with obscenity laws. A state would be well within its rights to ban portrayals of children having sex if that law is based upon the local standards of what's obscene. But let's say that a particular state's law did not identify images of children kissing as obscene; i.e. it's legal to show two 17 year olds necking in the backseat of a car. This law would make that image illegal, at the Federal level, simply because it showed children involved in what's technically a sexual activity, even though that particular class of image is not regarded by the local community as obscene. And beyond that, it would have banned the image even if the actors portraying the 17 year olds were really adults. It would have banned the image if it were ginned up in a computer. This law failed to address what is or isn't obscene. It was a capricious and arbitrary prohibition that served no purpose and protected no one. In short, it was a fine example of our obscene politicians grandstanding.