Clarence Thomas

“ In the event this occurs, the Government should not be foreclosed from enacting a regulation of virtual child pornography that contains an appropriate affirmative defense or some other narrowly drawn restriction.
The Court suggests that the Government’s interest in enforcing prohibitions against real child pornography cannot justify prohibitions on virtual child pornography, because “ [t] his analysis turns the First Amendment upside down. The Government may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech.” ”