When you're done again, re read the ruling and then read the dissents. Then take a peak at the 24 states who have enacted legislation banning virtual kiddie porn. This ruling makes those laws unconstitutional in point of fact.
When you're done with all of that try to convince yourself that freedom and liberty come from an omnipotent central government ruling that a pedophiles right to virtual child pornography is protected somewhere in the first amendment. An amendment crafted by the same men who crafted and lived with obsecnity laws in their states.
Virtual child porn is different. No child is harmed to make it. What this law did was to ban those images, but for no good reason. As I've been trying to get you to see over on that other thread, the government must have an interest in a particular matter before it goes passing laws. The government has no interest in protecting cartoon characters from pornographers. The law in question didn't outlaw the images because they are obscene. And it couldn't have been attempting to protect children from harm since no children were involved. It outlawed these images based upon an arbitrary criterion. It went far beyond the existing obscenity laws. As to the state laws, those may still be valid provided that they are based upon standards of what's obscene. If they are carbon copies of what Congress passed, then they'll be struck down as well.