Quote - > Quote -

In all other cases of child porn that Congress has dealt with, the photographers and distributers were required to have valid proof of age on file in the forms of indentification. If all they were worried about was the liability of being sued then that would be all they would have to do to conform to the letter of the law.  I'm certain that if photographers only went on a case by case basis to determine the age of their models by the judgement of the web site mods they would be leaving themselves wide open to lawsuits.

And in the case of pixels, proof of age is not only impossible, but even ridiculous, hehe...so that should mean that computer generated pixels are exempt.  However, here they aren't.

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi