...The pandering and solicitation made unlawful by the Act are sorts of inchoate crimes—acts looking toward the commission of another crime, the delivery of child pornography. As with other inchoate crimes—attempt and conspiracy, for example—impossibility of completing the crime because the facts were not as the defendant believed is not a defense. “All courts are in agreement that what is usually referred to as ‘factual impossibility’ is no defense to a charge of attempt.” 2 W. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law §11.5(a)(2) (2d ed. 2003). (The author gives as an example “the intended sale of an illegal drug [that] actually involved a different substance.” Ibid.) See also United States v. Hamrick, 43 F. 3d 877, 885 (CA4 1995) (en banc) (holding that impossibility is no defense to attempt and citing the holdings of four other Circuits); ALI, Model Penal Code §5.01, Comment (in attempt prosecutions “the defendant’s conduct should be measured according to the circumstances as he believes them to be, rather than the circumstances as they may have existed in fact”).[Emphasis added]

Pages 14-15 of the decision, which can be found (as a 47-page PDF) at the Supreme Court website.

(crickets chirp)

What, was that asking too much?

Seriously, I'm no advocate of child porn or the people who like to view it, but I would like to see something a but more substantial than "well this person was maybe interested in obtaining something that looked like child porn" before convicting that person of a crime. I certainly need something more than "well this person was maybe interested in obtaining something that looked like child porn but was in fact not child porn." Slippery slope.

Child pornography is obviously a disgusting evil, but the Supreme Court's 7-2 decision to uphold a ban on virtual child pornography seems troubling on the face. Consider the nuances of the ruling: The ruling upheld part of a 2003 law......