Under current US law, it is a very meaningful distinction. Possesing pictures of real child abuse. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) makes this distincti

Under current US law, it is a very meaningful distinction. Possesing pictures of real child abuse. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) makes this distinction very clear. > The argument that eliminating the market for pornography produced using real children necessitates a prohibition on virtual images as well is somewhat implausible because few pornographers would risk prosecution for abusing real children if fictional, computerized images would suffice. Moreover, even if the market deterrence theory were persuasive, the argument cannot justify the CPPA because, here, there is no underlying crime at all. Finally, the First Amendment is turned upside down by the argument that, because it is difficult to distinguish between images made using real children and those produced by computer imaging, both kinds of images must be prohibited. With the current composition of the court, I'm not convinced this precedent will hold up if a case reaches them. But until that happens, the law seems quite clear.