This will be a fascinating case to watch the Supreme Court handle. They are inclined by remit to regard what comes before them in the disinterested light of the Constitution, and not the harsh, flickering glare of public opinion. At heart, the issue facing them is the same as that facing the rest of us, and especially citizens of the USA who have a firm Constitutional right to freedom of expression. If you support the libertarian notion of freedom of expression, how much will you tolerate the expression of others that you find offensive? Distributing and (deliberately) possessing images portraying actual children being sexually abused can be justifiably argued, in my opinion, to be part of the act of abusing the children, just as standing beside the act of abuse and masturbating (or taking the pictures) might be considered as taking part. The right of personal or collective expression does not extend to the abuse of the rights of others. Images of actual child abuse should be kept as 'scenes of crimes' evidence, and nothing else. A similar scenario is seen with so called 'snuff videos', 'rape videos' and 'torture videos'. Making, distributing and keeping these videos is being party to the crimes of murder, rape and torture, and is not covered by any rights of 'freedom of expression'. Yet as a society we tolerate, are even entertained by, a seemingly endless supply of simulated deaths, rapes, injuries and tortures in our imagery. I've seen various arguments, sometimes sensible, from various sides that such imagery should be restricted to certain times of viewing / ages of audience; but I have never seen anyone outright say that John Wayne should never pretend to shoot people, or that Jodie Foster shouldn't pretend to get raped. Or that people should never make imagery of, or write about, such things. Images of virtual acts of abuse are not the same as images of actual abuse. And this applies to images of virtual sexual activity with virtual children. There isn't really any such thing as 'virtual child pornography', because the word 'child' does not apply - there is no child involved. I don't like imagery of virtual sexual activity with virtual children, and I don't like the people who enjoy making and viewing such imagery. People involved with these things are pathetic, contemptible and detestable, in my view. But they are not dangerous as such, and they are not the same as people who abuse real children. Imagery of virtual sexual activity with virtual children has not harmed any individual in its making, and any arguments about whether such imagery harms society as whole are the same as whether John Wayne and Jodie Foster movies harm society as a whole. In nations that purport to stand for freedom of expression, governments have no place restricting such expression. Shout and scream at the people expressing things that offend you, but be very wary of using government to shut them up. You might find government suddenly breaking down your door over some expression you've made...