People were mocking an Australian judge for declaring that cartoons using the Simpsons children in sexual situations wasn't just bad taste or copyright violations, but rather "Fake Simpsons cartoon 'is porn'" The BBC article by Nick Bryant noted, "An appeal judge in Australia has ruled that an animation depicting well-known cartoon characters engaging in sexual acts is child pornography."
Well, here in America, judges in Richmond (90 miles from DC) just did the same thing - "Child porn cartoon conviction upheld in Va." by LARRY O'DELL, The Associated Press, Friday, December 19, 2008. O'Dell wrote, "Child pornography is illegal even if the pictures are drawn, a federal appeals panel said in affirming the nation's first conviction under a 2003 federal law against such cartoons. ... 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.""
There's a similar case going on now in now in Iowa that the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund is helping with.
I have a child, and have no interest in this type of thing, but one wonders why the First Amendment only applies once in a while. I don't recall any add-ons that say "except for photographs or artwork that we really don't like."