SCOTUS has a heavy bias in favor of the First Amendment, and I applaud that. I am a free speech militant. But I wonder how much evidence was before the court that such pics might affect behavior. Maybe the evidentiary record was simply not strong enough. Maybe if it becomes so, SCOTUS will change. But to traduce the First Amendment based on intuition absent evidence is simply not something I would subscribe to. You may not like the bright line here, but maybe you will like it better when it comes to CFR. Of course, is SCOTUS upholds CFR in its entirely, I will feel constrained to revise and extend my remarks.
I don't think so. They made a point of validating and norming virtual child pornography and at the same time sent a message to the states and localities that the men in the robes know whats best for their citizens and child pornography is de riguer.
Thats why Rehnquist, Scalia and the patronly lady from Arizona dissented.
In other words the court has ruled that there is no difference between literary work and virtual child porn, it all falls under the same rubrick. Very discriminating of them.
By the way, what are the odds that at least two of the justices who voted to norm pedophile art will vote to uphold CFR?