Stuff from Kiwi Farm

[admin]

The problem is that law is unconstitutional, because if you actually read the law (and I did post it on here) it doesn't distinguish between real child pornography and virtual child porn. As I stated about in the US v Williams case

  "In keeping with Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), 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."

meaning the US Supreme court is still pushing that virtual child porn IS legal. This state law contradicts the US Supreme Court.