The portion of the child-porn law pertaining to computer-generated images that Hiram quotes is currently under review by the U.S. supreme court, after having been overturned in a lower court as being unconstitutionally vague. The decision is, as far as I know, still pending. My own view is that all that language about "appearing" and "conveying the impression" leaves law enforcement with insanely broad powers; it means, essentially, that the makers of main-stream movies, say, who cast adults in teen-age roles, could be convicted as child-pornographers if even the movie trailer depicts said adult actors having simulated sex. It basically creates a new class of thought crime, in which a concept is determined to be illegal. It's almost unprecedented in this country--I find it much more disturbing that any mildly eroticsed images of borderline teenage girls.