Virtual Child Pornography and The Constitution

I don't understand what the point of this argument is. Miller requires fact-finding, presumably by a jury, before speech can be punished as obscene: that's the point, precisely to avoid a test that treats obscenity as purely a matter of law, in which case the US Supreme Court is going to have to be the final determiner of obscenity in every case, as the Court found it was in the era of "Redrupping." Yet here you are trying to turn Miller into the very thing it was designed not to be: a standard of obscenity that can be decided for an entire category of works as a matter of law.

Your particular way of doing that is also legally faulty. You assume a category of "VCP," which is "created and traded with pedophiles' interests in mind." On this basis, you determine the work can have no value, and will be patently offensive, because these really turn out to be proxies for dislike of the motive of someone who is motivated by sexual attraction to people you consider to be children. But the problem with which you are supposedly trying to deal occurs in the space of First Amendment analysis, where the motive behind speech is an invalid basis for regulation. It is all right to advocate, or render beautiful, any crime. And the cases of importance are the ones at the edge, because of overbreadth. So the real question is presented, for example, by an animated _Romeo and Juliet_ in which the characters are depicted at the age Shakespeare specifies (which makes Juliet a child by our contemporary definition) and in which, as it happens, they are depicted in a non-obscene but sexual love scene, much as in Franco Zefferelli's film. Do you mean to argue that can be held obscene as a matter of law? You need better reasons than the ones advanced here.