"the Court found the prohibition of images that appear to be, but are not actually, minors improper; any harm stemming from those false images “does not necessa

"the Court found the prohibition of images that appear to be, but are not actually, minors improper; any harm stemming from those false images “does not necessarily follow from the speech, but depends upon some unquantified potential for subsequent criminal acts.”" Washington SC: "He claims any potential harm in his case is just as attenuated and vague as Free Speech Coalition. Because no harm was done, he should have the same right as any adult to take voluntary photographs of his own body. We do not find this argument persuasive." Am I correct in reading this as the court basically saying "The defendant presents a solid argument. We don't care." ??