Who are you yelling at VS? Actually, I agreed with your assessment in your previous post. Someone else in a different thread pointed out the difficulty the courts might have in differentiating between alleged "real" child porn, and virtual, CG "child" porn. I think that's a rather valid concern, because you know that people will try to slip the real deal in there, while calling it CG. With as realistic models and rendering engines are becoming these days, the really talented people can create images that look perfectly realistic, and the software being invented brings that ability closer and closer to the hobbyists every year. What if relaxing the laws against "virtual child porn" results in a slew of "real" child porn being passed off as CG? Is there a conclusive way of determining whether an actual photo was processed through a computer, or if it was created with a computer? Anyhow, I'm personally very much opposed to this new development, and I certainly hope it doesn't end here. I hope you are right that the Supreme Court's ruling is just their way of saying "needs more work". (Assuming that is what you meant) I think there is a difference between free speech and protecting it and the child porn issues. I don't believe in wanton free speech for all occasions and all circumstances. Some things just ought to have limits, IMO.