Oh boy!  A legal question!

Here's what I came up with for  "Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the

Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003"  as applied to depictions of Sexual conduct

with children:

A LITTLE HISTORY:
In the Miller case the U.S. Supreme Court ("USSC" hereafter) came up with an obscenity

test.  In Stanley v. Georgia, the USSC ruled that one is allowed to POSESS obscene

materials, but DISTRIBUTION of obscene materials was prime for regulation under the

theory that it affects Interstate Commerce ("ISC").  The USSC struck down child
pornography in NY v. Ferber, fuinding kiddie porn was without Constitutional protection

(obscenity)... but this decision was directed at REAL children, as it focused on the

damage to the CHILD who starred in the pornography.  In 1990, Osborne v. Ohio came
out
saying that child porn is not protected under the Stanley case (meaning you can't
possess
kid porn despite being able to posess some other forms of obscenity).  Then the advent
of
virtual child pornography came about, which circumvented the Ferber ruling because
no
actual children were ever recorded.  To address the loopholes, Congress passed the
Child
Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, targeting depictions of sex acts with children
(I
didn't take the time to read it, but it presumably covers not only virtual images,
but
drawn images.... perhaps even written stories of children in the act of sex).  In

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the USSC held that these DEPICTION PROVISIONS were

unconstitutional even under current obscenity law (the laws did not fail the Miller
test
<somehow> and never recorded a crime.  The USSC noted that mere ENCOURAGEMENT of
pedophile behavior was not enough, and that such materials needed to INCITE the banned

behavior).

So now we have the CURRENT LAW:  "Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the

Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003" which in pertinent part reads:
"18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B), provides that any person who knowingly —  
(B)  advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or
in
interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any material or

purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause

another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains — 
(i)  an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"


this is called the "Pandering Provision"

If this is the only law on the books currently, then I question whether ACTUAL POSSESSION

of these materials is prohibited by this statute.  All of the actions in section B
appear
to be business oriented. "Solicits" may prohibit seeking these materials, though I
wonder
how that provision is affected by the Internet, where you may stuble upon such materials

without seeking them out.  I assume this law DOES contain an actual posession
prohibition,  though I couldn't find it specifically.

As noted earlier, I also question whether this applies to ANY depiction, or just virtual

depictions (the difference being animated loli may be excluded under ANY kind of
depiction while traditional-style animated loli may not be excluded under a virtual-only

approach.    Perhaps clarifying the issue is the definition of child pornography which

reads: "(1) any digital or computer-generated image that is 'indistinguishable' from
that
of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,  and (2) a visual depiction that
has
been created or modified to appear as an identifiable minor engaging in sexually explicit

conduct."

That made me think lolicon stuff is probably not covered so long as it is distinguishable

from real children.... until I read this prohbition:  " (1)  obscene visual depictions
OF
ANY KIND that depict a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and (2) any visual

depiction that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in certain enumerated “hard

core” acts and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."


So does this latter section only apply to virtual depictions, or does it go towards
all
lolicon?  

My thoughts:  the PROTECT Act will probably be held unconstitutional if pressed into
the
USSC because it abrogates the Miller test, which is the current gold standard for

obscenity.  The USSC will likely find the PROTECT Act 
is overly broad, vague, and an infringement of non-commercial protected speech as
well.
But we'll see.

> Although, since then people have been prosecuted and had anime/manga
> related materials used as part of their criminal charges under the
> Protect Act of 2003.

Okay.  Meaning there was lolicon stuff AMONG the other child pornography?  If so,
such
decisions likely said nothing about the lolicon stuff and focused on the virtual kid

porn.  The courts don't have to address each category of child pornography.


 Granted these people were also in the possession of
> real life child pornography, but these products were also used under 18
> U.S.C. 1466A(a)(1) as legitimiate charges against them.

Yes, but that doesn't mean they aren't constitutionally protected.  That's merely
what
they were charged with.

<<How can something like Loli Manga for example be illegal to own all
across the world?>>

I don't know about the rest of the world, but in America, it could be regulated under

obscenity and/or morality laws.  Obscenity would regulate commercial and public realms

while morality would regulate the private realm.  And yes, the government does regulate

morality.  Try dropkicking a baby puppy and see if you don't go to jail for it.
nik


       
____________________________________________________________________________________Ready
for the edge of your seat?
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. 
http://tv.yahoo.com/