Re: VA judges find drawn CP illegal under PROTECT act

The VA court ruling is essentially moot in light of the 00-795 U.S. Supreme Court Ruling (released on April 16, 2002) which dealt w/ sections of the 1996 'Child Pornography Prevention Act.' The high court then found that:
"Section 2256(8(B) of the C.P.P.A. of 1996, which bands 'virtual child pornography', and Section 2256(8)(D), which prohibits the production of pornographic material pandered as child pornography, abridge the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of protected, lawful speech, and are therefore unconstitutional and over broad."
Now, from what I understand, the Court ruled earlier this year that a person may be prosecuted for advertising that they actually HAVE child porn for sale, which might seem to contradict the latter section (i.e., "....Section 2256(8)(D), which prohibits the production of pornographic material pandered as child pornography....") although I think (and this is only my own, semi-educated guess here, folks) that the original intent of the court was to prohibit prosecutions of above board porn companies that advertise items such as "daddy/daughter", or "young stuff" videos w/ the disclaimer in fine print that lets us all know that all actors/actresses are really 18+ in age. I think they only meant to rule as legally indefensible any film or photo series that was literally billed as including under age participants.
In any case, unless something fairly new has come up of which I am unaware, it would SEEM that the decision of the Supreme Court regarding 'virtual porn' is still intact.
Another point to consider: In July of 2003, the 10th Ohio District Court of Appeals threw out the guilty plea of a man who was locked up for writing fictional child rape stories. (True enough, he had been previously convicted of real c.p. charges) The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the ruling in November of that year. In March of 2004, Judge David Cain dismissed the charges formally and, effectively, closed the case.
(A quick and nauseating side note to this fiasco: According to news articles, the fictional journals were turned over to the man's probation officer by his OWN PARENTS!! I don't usually make statements like this, but if that is indeed true, I hope to hell those puritanical m-----f------
wind up in a substandard, roach infested nursing home where elder abuse is the norm when their time comes and that their son is too 'busy' to come to their aid !!!!!! OK!!! I'll take a deep breath and continue.....)
Point being, unless some NEW Supreme Court rulings have been issued that I am not aware of, I don't think this latest hysteria inspired ruling has a chance in hell once it gets to the federal level. The precedents seem to be clear cut and 100% on the side of the defendant.