>>50943697Those portions of the PROTECT act were ruled unconstitutional. Currently loli/shota stuff is de facto legal because it can only potentially/theoretically be illegal under obscenity law, which has a bullshit unconstitutional test (google the miller test) wherein a jury has to rule on a particular piece of content being illegal. In other words, legal content can retroactively become illegal if a dozen boomers in a conservative part of the country say so, but this is only ever used as an add-on charge for real shit to get plea deals out of people. Only once was it used as the main charge and the guy pleaded out rather than fighting it.
On top of that, obscenity law is badly worded, as it has a provision intended to protect real children by not requiring them to be found/brought into a court but they phrased it as that person not needing to "actually exist", which gets twisted (intentionally or not) by people into thinking that it covers drawings. Actual CP law is a different statute with very similar wording to obscenity law, but it explicitly excludes drawings, sculptures, etc.
>tl;dr it's something of a legal gray area because nobody wants to risk arguing either side of it in court, but a drawing is always legal until a jury says it isn't, and even then that only applies to that one drawingPic unrelated
