And this highlights the problem.

The issue isn't about the material itself, it's about the implications for artwork - computer generated or even just PnP - that could be considered "obscene" by someone in authority.

That it's being used against material that's patently gross, with implications of the motives and future actions of the person in question, isn't in doubt.

But it's also pretty obvious that no-one was actually hurt in the creation of the material.  No-one was exposed to it at the guy's house (that's been told about at any rate).  Its artistic value aside for a moment, it was nothing more than images.

If there were no overt acts of harm committed, doesn't it simply end up being a suppression of expression?  In effect, "you can't draw anything we we find immoral/obscene".  Along with that is "You can't write about things we find immoral/obscene".

It's effectively punishing thought, not deeds.

Again, the Danish cartoons come to mind.  Islam prohibits any depiction of the Prophet Mohammed, and yet everyone said the cartoons were legitimate even though they managed to annoy somewhere around a billion people.

Was there any artistic value to a picture of the Prophet with a bomb in his turban?  As I recall, a lot of people didn't think so - but they still stood up for the right of the cartoonists to draw it if they wanted to.

You can't turn around and say obscenity laws justify suppression of expression simply because of them being decided by some sort of societal majority - else how do you explain telling a billion people that their idea of obscenity doesn't count?

It isn't about whether or not those particular comics are obscene - they are, but it's irrelevant.  The government has decided to place a moral level of censorship on artwork that harms no-one in the creation, doesn't violate anyone's privacy if it's disseminated - and that can't be a good thing, because who makes those decisions?

You risk surrendering the right to determine the product of your own imagination and your right to create based on that product for your own edification and enjoyment.  The law regulates possession, not sale, dissemination, or production.

Simply possessing non-photographic artwork.  If you create it, you're in possession of it.

In some ways, we should actually "blame" some of this on the coders who create the software.  They've created software that produces photorealistic imagery, which makes it near-impossible for law enforcement to go after the "real" kiddie porn - the stuff with real live victims in it.

A pedophile could turn around and say "It's computer generated", and the cops would have the damndest time proving otherwise - the burden, you recall, being on them to prove guilt to begin with.  They struggle to identify real live victims of such creatures, the chances of them being able to categorically prove an image is not computer generated are getting slimmer almost day by day.

So this law got passed to cover the loophole, and shut down a way pedophiles could abuse computer-generated imagery.

(As an aside, the genesis of Manga to begin with, if I remember correctly, was because of Japanese cultural mores against "real" depictions of genitalia, and so Manga developed as a way to get around that to provide porn.)

But it doing so it can be used to go after almost every artist, for anything they produce in any form that offends the local community - who, incidentally, will also make up the jury that decides what has artistic value or not.

That's the problem.  It isn't that it's being used against kiddie porn, it's that it's so broad everyone who puts pencil to paper or renders an image is being told "The government can decide if it likes what you make, and if we don't, you're going to face criminal charges, even though no-one will have actually been hurt".

Kiddie porn ends up being the red herring, yet another "reasonable cause" to put such things in place to combat, because no-one will object to going after the people who like that material.

Think about what someone, for example from Focus On The Family, could do if they got into the state's attorney's office of your state, and you render gay-themed images?  You really think they'd hold back on making an example of you for "corrupting youth and pushing the homosexual agenda with such obscenity masquerading as art"?

Think people like them aren't considering how they can do just that?  The law already exists on the books, the opening is there.  If some lawyer in Florida can go after Take-Two software claiming they're responsible for Columbine and Va Tech and Goddess-alone-knows what else because of a simple computer game, it's pretty much a certainty some other "moral crusader" will pick this topic to get their 15 minutes out of.

It's being used against someone who likes virtual kiddie bestiality porn, but it is not limited in who it can apply to as only people who like virtual kiddie bestiality porn.

That's why I brought the question up in the first place.

Allowing the debate to get sidetracked into the right and wrongs of it's specific application in this case means people aren't going to see the branch for the leaves, let alone the forest - which is probably what those behind the law hope stifles debate of just how intrusive the law can be to begin with.

"Question the law, and the argument can be repositioned into how you're just supporting kiddie porn".  That ends up being really conducive to the free exchange of ideas :)

At the end of the day, how comfortable are artists with the idea that the government has the ability to decide if their artwork is obscene or not, and drag them in front of a judge, even if the artwork was on your computer in your home, possibly was never seen by or intended to be seen by anyone else, and didn't hurt or harm anyone?

Will you change what you create based on a fear that the inevitable will happen, that someone will find it offensive, and that this hypothetical someone might just end up being able to use this law to go after you?

Those are possibly better questions?