Flutterby™! : what First Amendment?

My take is that the "crusaders against child porn" aren't necessarily interested in preventing harm to the children, but in imposing a morality. Especially given the various studies that have shown that pornography provides a non-violent release (I think I remember that Nadine Strossen's Defending Pornography is a good source for those studies). Anyway, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a law expanding the definition of child pornography to include material made with adults that appears to be of children. I'd sure like to see the proof that "depictions that are represented to be minors are harmful in the same way as any child pornography, except that there is no minor involved in their production." This might be worth tracking down the decision because there are some really boneheaded quotes in the article, I'd like to see how they're backed up.