It's true. I gather you either didn't read the Supreme Court decision or didn't understand the issue.
. . . we may assume that the apparent age of persons engaged in sexual conduct is relevant to whether a depiction offends community standards. Pictures of young children engaged in certain acts might be obscene where similar depictions of adults, or perhaps even older adolescents, would not. The CPPA, however, is not directed at speech that is obscene [my bold]; Congress has proscribed those materials through a separate statute. 18 U. S. C. §§1460-1466. Like the law in Ferber, the CPPA seeks to reach beyond obscenity, and it makes no attempt to conform to the Miller standard [my bold]. For instance, the statute would reach visual depictions, such as movies, even if they have redeeming social value.Read the opinion. Federal and state obscenity laws stand, as do Miller and Ferber.The principal question to be resolved, then, is whether the CPPA is constitutional where it proscribes a significant universe of speech that is neither obscene under Miller nor child pornography under Ferber [my bold] . . .