>>15947
Legally, as long as the art clearly isn't drawn from a real life reference of a naked child, or is indistinguishable from a naked child, it's not under the umbrella of Child Pornography laws. Basically, Child pornography laws exist to protect real children, not restrict depictions of children in general.

The legal standard you're quoting is for pornography in general, and is from Jacobellis v. Ohio. It's not even the current standard for whether something is obscene or not. That's a three pronged test put out in Miller v. California.

The legal standards on Child porn ARE murky in the US, but not so murky as you'd think. Still, since cops can arrest people for things they think are against the law no matter if they actually are or not, Jim probably has the right idea.