> I think prosecutors would probably argue that even using a pencil purchased locally meets the bar of making the "visual depiction... produced using materials.. or that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer".
This would expand the Commerce Clause beyond Wickard v. Filburn arguably.
> Previously, the Supreme Court ruled in Ashcroft vs FSC that for CSAM to be illegal, it must at least meet the bar for obscenity, or it must be produced via actual exploitation.
You meant virtual child pornography? New York v. Ferber established Congress could ban real child pornography regardless of obscenity. I don't think Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition changed this. And calling all child pornography CSAM has made people confused about what images are illegal.
> The main point here is that something is happening and that will probably result in interesting decisions later on.
Possibly. Probably it will result in a plea bargain. And courts have resisted to clarify obscenity.
This would expand the Commerce Clause beyond Wickard v. Filburn arguably.
> Previously, the Supreme Court ruled in Ashcroft vs FSC that for CSAM to be illegal, it must at least meet the bar for obscenity, or it must be produced via actual exploitation.
You meant virtual child pornography? New York v. Ferber established Congress could ban real child pornography regardless of obscenity. I don't think Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition changed this. And calling all child pornography CSAM has made people confused about what images are illegal.
> The main point here is that something is happening and that will probably result in interesting decisions later on.
Possibly. Probably it will result in a plea bargain. And courts have resisted to clarify obscenity.