The Wikipedia article is incorrect, as is often the case. In the matter of U.S. vs Williams, the case cited, the U.S. Supreme court ruled:
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for a seven-Justice majority, held that the statute, the Protect Act, was not overly broad as written. Justice Scalia noted specifically that offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection, and he characterized the speech of an individual claiming to be in possession of child pornography in this category of unprotected speech. He also stated that the law did not violate Due Process because its requirements were clear and could be understood by courts, juries and potential violators. Justice David Souter filed the only dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined.
Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
In the case of drawn or CGI child pornography, the U.S. Fourth Court of Appeals ruled in December,2008, that, in the matter of U.S. vs Whorley:
Two judges rejected those arguments that "cartoons" or CGI child pornography are protected areas of free speech, reaffirming Whorley's conviction. A third agreed with Whorley on those issues but joined the majority in affirming his convictions on the counts pertaining to photographs.
The findings: Section 1466A(a)(1) clearly prohibits an obscene photographic depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; it also criminalizes receipt of "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting," that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" and is obscene. Section 1466A(c), moreover, unambiguously states that "[i]t is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist." 18 U.S.C. [section]1466A(c).
Judge Paul V. Niemeyer noted in the majority opinion that the statute under which Whorley was convicted, the PROTECT Act of 2003, clearly states that "it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists."
This will probably be heard by the Supreme Court, but has not yet been submitted by Whorley's attorneys.
Dewes is entirely correct.
