[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?

[Redcloak]

I'm not backtracking; I'm addressing what the ruling and the law were about. The "backseat" image I described was illegal under that law, even if no children were involved in making it. The premise of kiddie porn laws is that they protect children from being involved in sexual acts that they are unable to consent to. This law made it illegal to merely imply that the images were of children; even if it were provable that the actors involved were adults. It was not written to protect children as existing child porn laws are.

This ruling also has nothing to do with existing state obscenity laws. What was obscene in your state last week is still obscene today. It also had nothing whatsoever to do with mandating that your local library allow access to porn over their computer systems. You're making apples and oranges arguments.