[manfredo]

The Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down state laws banning fake child porn. Since the 2010s a few people have been convicted for it, but only alongside convictions of real images. They probably saw no point in appealing if the other charges would stick.

States have obscenity laws that restrict sale and advertisement of this content, but possession cannot be banned by obscenity laws. Think about the mess that would be enforcing this law. You can't objectively determine the age of a fake character, unlike a real person.

[somebodythere]

> Think about the mess that would be enforcing this law. You can't objectively determine the age of a fake character, unlike a real person.

It is certainly a mess, but that doesn't stop jurisdictions outside the United States from prosecuting it.

[manfredo]

The parent commenter seemed to be referring to the US, given that they referred to Delaware (a US State).

[somebodythere]

I know; they were saying that this law wouldn't be enforced in a U.S. state because it's a mess to do so. That's not a strong argument because there is evidence of such laws being enforced despite the difficulty in assigning ages to a fictional character.

[buisi]

Child porn carries very steep mandatory minimums. It is common for defendants to settle for a plea deal under the minimum.