"Yeah, maybe it went too far. Maybe it was vague. But it was a helluva lot better than nothing at all, which is exactly what we have right now, gang." I whole heartedly disagree. Bad laws are never better than no laws. With the vague nature of the wording of this law, movies like "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" could be classified as child porn because it suggests that the underage (regardless of actual age) characters had sex. It didn't matter that it wasn't graphically depicted or porn by an sensible person's definition of the word. Are we better off if Amy Heckerling is put in jail as a pornographer? Child porn laws should be written so they protect children and punish those who harm them. Any law that allows punishment for mere "suggestion" that two 16 year olds may be having sex is pathetic and stupid. Many mainstream movies suggest this because they are reflecting on what happens in real life. We should not start down the road to censoring that kind of movie, and this bad law opened the gate. I do understand the fear that we are getting so good at this that soon you won't be able to tell if its a real person or a computer generated one. Now while I fully support child porn laws that protect kids, I'm not sure whether CG kids count. They aren't actually kids now are they? They are just numbers in a computer...does preventing certain kinds of numbers in a computer protect children?