theconstitution

This actually makes for a pretty interesting case study -- you can read more here: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/virtual-child-pornograph...

Not saying I necessarily agree with the reasoning, but the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 includes "picture or computer-generated image or picture" which "is, or, appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" in its definition of child pornography.

The reasoning was that even simulated child pornography fosters the market for, and encourages the consumption of, the kind that hurts children. Consumers won't necessarily know or care about the provenance of any particular piece of material, so all are banned regardless of the means of production.

These provisions were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2002, on the reasoning that the ban was too broad -- "Without a significantly stronger, more direct connection, the Government may not prohibit speech on the ground that it may encourage pedophiles to engage in illegal conduct."

So, Congress responded by more specifically criminalizing the advertisement, sale, or promotion of material that "reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe" that it is of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

So these images are still illegal on the simple fact that they are explicit; but even if one tried to ban only the non-voluntary or non-first-party images, it'd be illegal to pass them off otherwise.

This topic is so radioactive that I'm reluctant even to write about it, but it really is interesting constitutionally.