[Manuel_D]

But crucially:

> However, the court did not reverse its holding in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition as to virtual child pornography which is not obscene under the Miller standard

[arijun]

Unless I’m misunderstanding it wrong, any kind of porn would pass the first two prongs of the Miller test: it’s for purient purposes and it has depictions of sexual acts. As for the third prong, I’m sure some porn out there has literary merit, but I would guess the vast, vast majority would not.

[Exoristos]

> virtual child pornography which is not obscene

Does it surprise anyone else that this is a legal possibility?

[rootusrootus]

I get a little twitchy anytime we have laws based on something like obscenity, which is by definition a moral judgement.

[inigyou]

It isn't possible, it's a fig leaf to avoid the law being ruled unconstitutional, but doesn't change the law itself.