is virtual child porn protected by the 1st amendment?

Question

i know that child porn with REAL children is against the law because u are exploiting children, but what if no actualy children are used? like "computer graphics" porn, is that protexted by the freedom of speech?

Answer 1

"Maybe".

The law is not yet fixed on this subject.

The Federal Govt passed a law a couple of years ago that banned "virtual child porn", but the same law also banned porn using adults who "looked" like they were under 18, or whose photographs had been digitally edited to MAKE them "look" under 18. The law was challenged in court and found to be unconstitutional because how old someone "looks" is purely subjective. That means the law ceased to be valid law, which means that there is, again, no law 'specifically' banning virtual child porn.

BUT.... That doesn't mean it's automatically legal, either. Material can be obscene because it features children even if it features paintings, drawings, cartoons - or even written material only. All it means is that each incident would have to be prosecuted on the basis of getting a jury to find the material "obscene" on it's merits. There's no law that 'automatically' makes the material obscene just because of the 'apparent' age of the "virtual model".

Richard

Answer 2

the supreme court struck down such a law based on protected first amendment rights.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/scotus.virtual.child.porn/

i am not sure whether new similar laws have passed or are being challenged presently

EDIT:

U.S. v. Williams, Michael
Docket: 06-0694
Term: 2007-08
Appealed From: 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (April 6, 2006)
Oral Argument:Oct. 30, 2007

The Supreme Court is slated to weigh in again on congressional efforts to outlaw child pornography, focusing on whether the provisions of the so-called PROTECT Act are too broad to be permissible under the First Amendment.
The case involves Michael Williams, who was convicted in federal district court of "pandering" (promoting) child pornography.
The federal PROTECT Act proscribes the pandering of "any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe" that the material is illegal child pornography. The Act represents Congress's attempt to outlaw sexually explicit images of children - including both images of real children and computer-generated images of realistic virtual children.
The Supreme Court struck down as overbroad Congress's previous effort to achieve the same goal in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Council, because the law as written could have outlawed artwork that was neither obscene nor child pornography. Williams argued that the PROTECT Act was similarly overbroad, but the district court held that the government can legitimately outlaw the pandering of material as child pornography, even if the material is not in fact child pornography.

Keep in mind that child pornography laws outlaw child porn whether it is considered 'obscene' or not. Adult pornography on the other hand has to be labeled as such to be illegal.
"Generally, pornography can be banned only if it is obscene under Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15, but pornography depicting actual children can be proscribed whether or not the images are obscene because of the State's interest in protecting the children exploited by the production process, New York v. Ferber, 458 U. S. 747, 758"

Answer 3

No, any depiction of child porn is illegal and should be prosecuted. Photos and drawings, it is still the same, sick and inexcusable.

Answer 4

up to the court and the material in question