[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.

[jwalsh07]

Now you're backtracking. You're arguing 17 year olds kissing in the backseat. I'm not.

The important part of the ruling was declaring virtual kiddie porn protected under the first amendment.

And, please, enough with the cartoon strawmen. Computer graphics are capapble of infinitely more than cartoons.

SCOTUS has no right telling my town that we must allow access to porn in our libraries which the ACLU has argued for successfully. Next, we will be required to allow access to virtual kiddie porn because after all, who is harmed?