One of the problems with the bill was that it criminalized even visual representations that were fictitious or invented; i.e., that were not of any particular, actual child. I can understand criminalizing, say, photographs (or movies or videos or artwork done from life) of children engaging in sex, since that is by definition exploiting someone who cannot legally consent. But a drawing made up entirely from imagination? Whom does that harm?
Part of the anti-porn impetus is the antis' insistence that people OUGHT NOT to want to see/read porn. That is doubly so when it comes to porn involving children. The argument might be that reading a story about children or seeing a drawing depicting children might make the adult more likely to abuse an actual child. But seeing a pretty girl might make a man want to rape her; do we ban pictures of pretty girls? Seeing a diamond ring in a store window might make a person want to steal it; do we ban store displays? One could also argue that porn is a safe way for people to deal with their urges. A law should be drawn as narrowly as possible to achieve its goal with a minimum of ambivalence or over-stepping. Child pornography should be banned only when it is made using actual children. Anything else is going too far. Tom Beck "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I didn't realize I'd also see the last." - Jerry Pournelle
