Virtual Porn is legal. Today the supreme court handed down a ruling stating it is legal to virtually simulate child pornography. The law that was reversed barred "sexually explicit material that 'appear(s) to be a minor' or that is advertised in a way that "conveys the impression" that a minor was involved in its creation." About two months ago my 1st Amendment professor brought up this issue and I thought that the idea of child pornography, virtual or real, was just plain wrong for fairly obvious reasons.

Then I thought about why it was wrong and realized that it's all about protecting the kids. If we're trying to protect the kids then what does it matter if there is a virtual depiction of the act? How does that hurt the children? The WIRED article suggestsit could promote interest in child pornography. I agree this is a valid concern but what about instances when art is involved? A Reuter's article claims the justices point to "Traffic" and "Romeo and Juliet" as instances when child porn is used but for artistic purposes.

For this reason, I wholeheartedly agree with the court. There are definitely concerns with allowing this material to be produced, but the original law was overbroad and was hampering artistic and political views. Also, this decision may save a few children from pedaphiles or people looking to make a dirty dollar.

Here's the official ruling from the court, if you speak legalese.