>>45032508I'm sorry, what? Are you too simple-minded to follow basic concepts?
Handley received five charges. The first four were under a law regarding materials specifically depicting children, the fifth was under a different law about sending obscene material in general through the postal system. The law for the first four was deemed 'constitutionally infirm' by the judge, and so he couldn't be prosecuted. The fifth held, and he took a plea bargain for it. So the only charge he was actually prosecuted for was the fifth, and the child aspect wasn't part of that charge.
You can't criminalize fictional sexual depictions of children in US law solely on the basis they depict children, the courts have repeatedly stuck such laws down. You could still charge people for such content under obscenity laws, but those apply to all pornography and not just lolicon stuff. Also note that obscenity laws can only restrict such materials in specific contexts and actions; general possession of obscene material, regardless of content, is protected (Stanley v Georgia, 1969).
