1. Anti-kiddie porn laws are aimed at protecting the children used to make the porn. Protection is both direct in the making of the porn and indirect in the distribution of the material. This one is a no brainer. Throw the perp in the slammer and throw away the key.

2. More subtle is the fake kiddie porn. The indirect distribution of the material is identical to the real thing. However, the direct connection is missing. Nobody denies the connection between the distribution of kiddie porn and sexual abuse of children. However, many are baffled by this apparent dilemma. While our society at this point flinches at kiddie porn, the endorsement of adult porn is somehow usually defended under the first amendment freedom of expression and/or freedom of religion, more precisely freedom from religion by "not having someone's morals rammed down your throat". Fake kiddie porn underscores the hypocrisy of this arbitrary decision. Most people are uncomfortable with fake kiddie porn, but can't give a real basis. What is kiddie porn anyway? Is it an age? Or a stage of physical development. Is kiddie porn "bad" if it involves a 16 year old? Or a 10 year old? Or a 4 year old? When does it become ok and why? Because there is no morals involved, the only solutions that SCOTUS can come up with will be rationalizations. Even the APA which holds strange views on adult/child sex relations concedes that there is a link between tv (ie, fake) violence observed and agression later in life.

<link>

Other organizations have confirmed these findings.

<link>

It is entirely consistent then to accept that watching fake kiddie porn then has the same effect as watching the real thing. American libertarian views continue however to support the consensus that kiddie porn fake is detrimental to society not for legal reasons but for moral reasons.

"Even the APA which holds strange views on adult/child sex relations concedes that there is a link between tv (ie, fake) violence observed and agression later in life."

Let's stipulate that. OK, shall we make possession of Grand Theft Auto, Manhunter, and Hitman (video games) a felony? There is no question in my mind that these games realistically simulate, glorify, and normalize violent acts including murder.

Excrete or vacate the commode. Are you prepared to forbid realistic depictions of behavior we all know to be wrong, on the grounds that they may encourage people to do it for real? At what point does it become criminal just to think about such things?

Thought crime has no place in a free society. You can think something is icky, but as long as someone else confines their enjoyment of the icky things to their thoughts, or pure abstract thought representations, then what gives you the right to hold a gun to their heads and stop them from having their sick little fantasies?

You are a lone ranger on this one. The ESRB was formed to prevent governmental intervention. The games are rated and are supposed to be enforced. If that doesn't work, then yes the government will make them mandatory because there is an undeniable link between children observing fake violence and agression in later life. That is called cause and effect. The comparison is for fake kiddie porn v fake violence. The fake part is immaterial.

This is not the thought police and it is not pure abstract. There is a conscious act of making and selling this porn. The media must be purchased, rented or borrowed. If you use your logic then someone who buys materials to make a bomb and is arrested is a victim of the thought police. Indeed, nobody could by convicted of conspiracy because it is all thought and talk. Just to walk with you for a second, explain how the thought processes are different for fake kiddie porn v real kiddie porn. Or are you also defending the real kiddie porn?

Sorry, but if you build your argument on BS logic and false analogies, please don't take it as disrespectful if I dismiss your position out of hand.

When someone is taken down for conspiracy, they have to actually be planning a crime, not just talking or thinking about it. There is a concept called "mens rea" that you should look up and read about.

Yes, we regulate who may access certain things we regard as mentally harmful to impressionable minds, such movies and games that contain violent or sexual content. That cannot be used to argue that we should make those same things illegal for adults, who theoretically know the difference between right and wrong, fantasy and reality, etc.

To quote Carmen, "je chante pour moi-même, je chante pour moi-même! Et je pense! il n'est pas défendu de penser!"

How are the thought processes different between the real thing and the fake? I think you can probably figure that out if you think about it for a while.

There is no difference between the thought processes of the sexual predator looking at real v fake kiddie porn. You jumped in with both feet ahead of me with mens rea. The guy looking at a 21year old who looks 12 has the same criminal mindset as when he is actually looking at the 12 year old.

It is no different than a police decoy who arrests the John for solicitation. Some guy actually tried a defense like your logic. The cops setup a sting for the purchase of drugs. He fell for it and was arrested and convicted. On appeal he argued that it was not a legitimate buy so no law was broken because the police knowingly let him break the law. Of course he lost.

Enough. I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.