Replies

The only part I have a problem with, and this is from a libertarian perspective, not a moral one (morally I love this ruling), is that the new law aims not just at actual child pornography, but also simulated pornography, and in fact this is the part they upheld.

I can understand the part where a computer-generated child sex act should be considered child pornography, even though no children are participants.

The part I have some qualms with is this, from a different article on the subject:

The pandering provision bars soliciting or offering images in a way that ``reflects the belief'' or ``is intended to cause another to believe'' that the depictions are illegal child pornography. The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had said the measure was vague and overly broad.
...
The law was a response to a 2002 Supreme Court ruling that struck down an earlier law. That statute had banned possession of movies or pictures that appeared to contain child pornography yet actually were generated with computers or with adults who look like minors.

Of course, here is what Scalia said about that:

But Justice Antonin Scalia, in his opinion for the court, said the law does not cover movie sex. there is no "possibility that virtual child pornography or sex between youthful-looking adult actors might be covered by the term 'simulated sexual intercourse."' Scalia said.

So I don't know what is true -- does this law say you can't show sex with a 20-year-old actress if you've made her look like she's under age?