Wendy L. Pursel


This Comment does not debate the efficacy of the Child Pornography Prevention Act in accomplishing its purpose-the effective regulation of computer-generated images. Nor does this Comment address adult-simulated child pornography. Rather, working under the assumption that the statute accomplishes what it aims to accomplish-namely the regulation of computer-generated child pornography-this Comment looks beyond the statute and its language to the broader discussion of the value in regulating this type of material. Specifically, this Comment will focus on two issues: first, whether legislation regulating computer-generated child pornography can survive First Amendment considerations of free speech, and second, the social arguments made in favor of regulating computergenerated child pornography. As this Comment will show, the government has a strong interest in protecting its children. It likewise has a legitimate interest in protecting other members of society. Both of these interests, combined with the material's lack of social value, propel computer-generated child pornography into that narrow class of unprotected speech in which obscenity and child pornography currently reside, rendering computer-generated child pornography subject to regulation despite any First Amendment concerns.