This is where the law failed to pass Constitutional muster. As was pointed out in the majority opinion, there are many mainstream (non-pornographic) works that depict minor characters engaged in sexual activity. When this is done for a movie, as an example, an adult actor is chosen to play the part of the minor character. Under 18USC2252(a)(5)(B), that was illegal, even though no minors were involved. In pointing out that the "children" protected by the statute are cartoons, Rush is right (again).
No, he is wrong. Dead wrong.
As Coulter pointed out CPPA didn't stop (or even slow down) the garbage from Hollywood. No one was arrested under CPPA for filming Traffic or American Beauty, for example. CPPA had been around since 1995. Coulter is right. Rehnquist is right. Rush is being a fool. The FBI didn't target Hollywood, did it?
The pornographers went whining to the courts about first amendment rights when their speech was never threatened. The law was not written to harass Hollywood, but to close the loophole child pornographers and pedophiles were using. Re-read law and take this out: "or appears to be." There was no point in writing a law to cover virtual child porn without "or appears to be." It would be meaningless.