1. 1996 Congress passed the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA)
2. In 2002 the US Supreme Court struck the law down because it made materials using "virtual children" illegal (Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition 2002)
3. In 2003 Congress passed the PROTECT ACT replaced the CPPA removing the issues in CPPA.
4. In 2008 a part of the PROTECT ACT was struck down because it only contained one of three prongs of the miller test (for obscenity) when the US Supreme court has stated in the past all three prongs are required to deem something obscene. (United States v Handley)
5. Also, in 2008 The US Supreme court ruled that the pandering (offering or requesting to transfer, sell, deliver, or trade the items) section of PROTECT ACT was constitutional. Like obscenity, pandering child porn and virtual child porn is illegal to buy or sell through interstate commerce. The Court further stated that 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) would not be construed to punish the solicitation or offering of "virtual" (computer generated/animated) child pornography, thus comporting with the holding of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). In keeping with Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002),[6] The Court stated that "an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means 'a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed,' post, at 13. Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever." (United States v Williams 2008 US Supreme Court)
2. In 2002 the US Supreme Court struck the law down because it made materials using "virtual children" illegal (Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition 2002)
3. In 2003 Congress passed the PROTECT ACT replaced the CPPA removing the issues in CPPA.
4. In 2008 a part of the PROTECT ACT was struck down because it only contained one of three prongs of the miller test (for obscenity) when the US Supreme court has stated in the past all three prongs are required to deem something obscene. (United States v Handley)
5. Also, in 2008 The US Supreme court ruled that the pandering (offering or requesting to transfer, sell, deliver, or trade the items) section of PROTECT ACT was constitutional. Like obscenity, pandering child porn and virtual child porn is illegal to buy or sell through interstate commerce. The Court further stated that 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) would not be construed to punish the solicitation or offering of "virtual" (computer generated/animated) child pornography, thus comporting with the holding of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). In keeping with Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002),[6] The Court stated that "an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means 'a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed,' post, at 13. Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever." (United States v Williams 2008 US Supreme Court)