"...the CPPA is not unconstitutionally vague. Persons of ordinary intelligence can discern whether a depiction is virtually indistinguishable from a photograph of a real child engaged in sexually explicit conduct. 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 sexual activity. That question can be readily answered in the vast majority of cases based on the physical characteristics of the persons depicted and the way in which the material is promoted."
............
"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 children engaging in sexually explicit conduct."
............
"Depictions That Are Virtually Indistinguishable From Depictions Of Real Children Engaged In Sexually Explicit Conduct Are Unprotected By The First Amendment."
............
"Because the Act applies only to depictions that are virtually indistinguishable from photographs of real children, it does not apply to drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings that depict youthful-looking persons in sexual poses."
>>>> It's not actually illegal (in America) to make those kinds of drawings.... <<<<<
You yourself know it... you yourself said it....
...................................................
https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/ashcroft-v-free-speech-coalition-merits
............
"...the CPPA is not unconstitutionally vague. Persons of ordinary intelligence can discern whether a depiction is virtually indistinguishable from a photograph of a real child engaged in sexually explicit conduct. 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 sexual activity. That question can be readily answered in the vast majority of cases based on the physical characteristics of the persons depicted and the way in which the material is promoted."
............
"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 children engaging in sexually explicit conduct."
............
"Depictions That Are Virtually Indistinguishable From Depictions Of Real Children Engaged In Sexually Explicit Conduct Are Unprotected By The First Amendment."
............
"Because the Act applies only to depictions that are virtually indistinguishable from photographs of real children, it does not apply to drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings that depict youthful-looking persons in sexual poses."
............
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256
Dragoneer even cited this exact section of U.S. law in his post in the Fur Affinity Forums back in 2006...
https://web.archive.org/web/20150821170440/https://forums.FurAffinity.net/thread...
.............