Interesting. > And there's stuff in the photography bit that means pseudo-photographs still count as illegal. That's where America differs. We expressly allo

Interesting. > And there's stuff in the photography bit that means pseudo-photographs still count as illegal. That's where America differs. We expressly allow pseudo-imagery under the first amendment. Logic being that the harm comes in the exploitation, but for digital representations of images that are pornographic, nobody was exploited in the process of their creation (at least, assuming nobody was exploited in the process of their creation). The UK laws though seem to both be more tangible than the situation discussed in the article, at least assuming that 'sexual grooming' has been defined and is fairly narrowly interpretable. I'm not the person to say whether or not pretend pedo-porn is a net good or evil for the world; but I can see arguments in either direction, but if they're actually grooming children who they then meet, clearly, that's a net bad. Edit: I had it exactly backwards, and now I'm wondering how in the hell I remember it so wrongly. Apparently we do not condone digital representations of child porn under the PROTECT Act of 2003[1]. I would swear I knew it the other way 'round. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_child_pornography#Virtual_child_pornography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_child_pornography#Vi...