Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition -- "The CPPA is not unconstitutionally vague. Persons of ordinary intelligence can discern whether a depiction is virtually indistinguishable from a photograph of a real ch*ld engaged in s*x*ally explicit conduct. Contrary to the court of appeals' view, that statutory standard is objective rather than subjective. The question is whether a reasonable unsuspecting viewer would consider the depiction to be of an actual individual under the age of 18 engaged in s*x*al activity."
....
"...the CPPA is not unconstitutionally overbroad. The statute's "legitimate reach" plainly "dwarfs its arguably impermissible applications." Ferber, 458 U.S. at 773. The statute is aimed at hard core ch*ld p*rn*graphy and does not apply to innocuous images of n*ked ch*ldr*n. Nor does it reach Drawings, Cartoons, Sculptures, or Paintings depicting youthful persons in s*x*ally explicit poses."
....
"....Congress intended for both prohibitions to reach a narrow category of material -- depictions that are "virtually indistinguishable to the unsuspecting viewer from unretouched photographic images of actual ch*ldr*n engaging in s*x*ally explicit conduct."
....
"Depictions That Are Virtually Indistinguishable From Depictions Of Real Ch*ldr*n Engaged In S*x*ally Explicit Conduct Are Unprotected By The First Amendment."
......
The Protect Act of 2003 was ruled "Unconstitutional" for its attempts to bypass the Miller Test for Obscenity, it was replaced with the "CPPA" which does not attempt to criminalize non-realistic cartoon artwork that is not based on any pre-existing person who actually exists in real life...
I came here from 2024 to slap yew wit da LAW...
...............................................
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition -- "The CPPA is not unconstitutionally vague. Persons of ordinary intelligence can discern whether a depiction is virtually indistinguishable from a photograph of a real ch*ld engaged in s*x*ally explicit conduct. Contrary to the court of appeals' view, that statutory standard is objective rather than subjective. The question is whether a reasonable unsuspecting viewer would consider the depiction to be of an actual individual under the age of 18 engaged in s*x*al activity."
....
"...the CPPA is not unconstitutionally overbroad. The statute's "legitimate reach" plainly "dwarfs its arguably impermissible applications." Ferber, 458 U.S. at 773. The statute is aimed at hard core ch*ld p*rn*graphy and does not apply to innocuous images of n*ked ch*ldr*n. Nor does it reach Drawings, Cartoons, Sculptures, or Paintings depicting youthful persons in s*x*ally explicit poses."
....
"....Congress intended for both prohibitions to reach a narrow category of material -- depictions that are "virtually indistinguishable to the unsuspecting viewer from unretouched photographic images of actual ch*ldr*n engaging in s*x*ally explicit conduct."
....
"Depictions That Are Virtually Indistinguishable From Depictions Of Real Ch*ldr*n Engaged In S*x*ally Explicit Conduct Are Unprotected By The First Amendment."
......
The Protect Act of 2003 was ruled "Unconstitutional" for its attempts to bypass the Miller Test for Obscenity, it was replaced with the "CPPA" which does not attempt to criminalize non-realistic cartoon artwork that is not based on any pre-existing person who actually exists in real life...
.....