This actually makes for a pretty interesting case study -- you can read more here: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.firstamendmentcenter.org&#x2F;virtual-child-pornography" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.firstamendmentcenter.org&#x2F;virtual-child-pornograph...</a><p>Not saying I necessarily agree with the reasoning, but the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 includes &quot;picture or computer-generated image or picture&quot; which &quot;is, or, appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct&quot; in its definition of child pornography.<p>The reasoning was that even simulated child pornography fosters the market for, and encourages the consumption of, the kind that hurts children. Consumers won&#x27;t necessarily know or care about the provenance of any particular piece of material, so all are banned regardless of the means of production.<p>These provisions were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2002, on the reasoning that the ban was too broad -- &quot;Without a significantly stronger, more direct connection, the Government may not prohibit speech on the ground that it may encourage pedophiles to engage in illegal conduct.&quot;<p>So, Congress responded by more specifically criminalizing the advertisement, sale, or promotion of material that &quot;reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe&quot; that it is of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.<p>So these images are still illegal on the simple fact that they are explicit; but even if one tried to ban only the non-voluntary or non-first-party images, it&#x27;d be illegal to pass them off otherwise.<p>This topic is so radioactive that I&#x27;m reluctant even to write about it, but it really is interesting constitutionally.