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] . . .
Until the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision is stricken down Ashcroft can spout off any way he likes. Animations are still allowed.
Ashcroft is nothing but a glorified attorney. Even he will have to abide by the Ninth Circuit Court's opinion until it's overruled. It's direct attention to this matter isn't open to interpretation or discussion, except at the SCOTUS level.
Now, will it be overturned, or should it be? Well my dear, that's what this thread was all about. To bad you've come to the game late.