It's not that simple

When they re-wrote CPPA into the PROTECT they inserted a magic word. Obscene. Apparently some time back in the dark ages some idiot supreme court judges decided that what the first amendment really meant to say way "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... unless it's gross."

--- the above is factual, the below is my speculation ---

Needless to say that "interpretation" is long overdue for repeal, but that seems politically unlikely. Though if the new administration gets a chance to replace some of the judges it's possible something could change on that front I suppose.

Still, it's my understanding that the current ruling is that private possession of obscenity is protected (I'm not sure if this comes under 1st amendment, privacy, or what). So it looks to me like PROTECT is trying to claim a little of column A and a little of column B from child porn and obscenity free speech exceptions, when neither actually applies to mere possession of fictional child porn. I can only hope SCOTUS sees it that way too.

But unfortunately for Dwight, he was caught in the act of receiving the material which isn't protected, so even that ruling might not help him.