[Calico Cat]

How is that statement 'patently absurd'? The Justice Department, which investigates cases of 'real' child pornography, stated the same thing: if computer technology makes it impossible to distinguish between a REAL child used in pornography and one created by computer, how do they prosecute the manufacturer? All the maker will have to do is to claim that the children used in its loathsome product are computer generated. Those who possess this crap will be able to do the same thing. ONE MORE THING: why were 'legitimate' pornographers the plaintiffs in this case? Do they smell money? Will mainstream porn sites now feature links to 'virtual' child porn? They've always claimed to eschew this stuff; I think that you're seeing the true faces of those who create porn. Anything for a buck.

[max61]

Read the decision and answer your own question instead of assuming.

The last thing the Justice Department cares about is justice.

---max