undefined

points

[-]

Clicking on a page linked in your article, the PROTECT Act of 2003[1] (passed a year later), I see:

> The PROTECT Act includes prohibitions against obscene illustrations depicting child pornography, including computer-generated illustrations, also known as virtual child pornography. Previous provisions outlawing virtual child pornography... had been ruled unconstitutional... The PROTECT ACT attached an obscenity requirement under the Miller test or the variant test noted above to overcome this limitation.

Which, if I'm reading it right, means that GP was correct in saying "conviction of CSAM-related crimes do not require any physical act to have ever occurred to any real person"

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003

by Manuel_D4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

But crucially:

> However, the court did not reverse its holding in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition as to virtual child pornography which is not obscene under the Miller standard

by Exoristos3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> virtual child pornography which is not obscene

Does it surprise anyone else that this is a legal possibility?

by rootusrootus2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I get a little twitchy anytime we have laws based on something like obscenity, which is by definition a moral judgement.