[Vicki]

So you agree then, they are taking about photographs and not cartoons.

[Redcloak]

The law made no distinction between photographs and drawn images. Also, the ruling made no reference to existing defamation laws. The plaintiffs did not challenge that area of the law. This was about portrayals of minors in sexual images. Under this ruling, it's still illegal to photograph children having sex, it's still illegal to put a child's face on the body of an adult having sex, and it's still illegal to digitally alter a photograph of a child having sex. What's no longer illegal it the use of adults or computer generated images to simulate children in sexual situations. (Provided that the work in question isn't obscene under existing obscenity laws.)