Sandra Day O'Connor

“ Reading the statute only to bar images that are virtually indistinguishable from actual children would not only assure that the ban on virtual-child pornography is narrowly tailored, but would also assuage any fears that the “appears to be ... of a minor” language is vague. The narrow reading greatly limits any risks from “discriminatory enforcement.” ”

“ Of even more serious concern is the prospect that defendants indicted for the production, distribution, or possession of actual-child pornography may evade liability by claiming that the images attributed to them are in fact computer-generated. ”

“ The statute provides an affirmative defense for those who produce, distribute, or receive pornographic images of individuals who are actually adults, § 2252A (c) , but not for those with pornographic images that are wholly computer generated. This is not surprising given that the legislative findings enacted by Congress contain no mention of youthful-adult pornography. Those findings focus explicitly only on actual-child pornography and virtual-child pornography. ”