More importantly, can I see footage of said children's programs? is your paedophilia rate low?

Actually, Noname is right... but possible wrong.

Wikipedia I know

In response to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, Congress passed the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) and it was signed into law on April 30, 2003 by then president George W. Bush.[32] The law enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes material that has "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting", that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is "obscene" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".

Also, this guy was arrested because he had real child porn.  He erased it though, and they used this as a way to get him and plea him out to a lesser charge for a case that could of gone either way.

Damn, now I gotta put all my sweet pics in a folder titled "MS Word Documents."    >:)    rofl

No no. The only place people never check is "Instruction manuals".

Ah, noted.  Gotta go for the most boring thing possible.  Thanks bud, experience rules all eh?  ;)

This made me lol.

The question is if fapping to drawings of kids and thinking of sick things involving kids might make you want to feck real kids... ok since there are hardcore weirdos out there, I think that's possible.

We would need psychological studies to back up this, though. But that means we can't say the opposite either.

So imo, it should be illegal. For now.

That's actually the reason I put settled in quotation marks.  However, remember that Congress and other legislative bodies have a long history of trying to get around Court decisions by retreading familiar ground with slightly-changed wording (see, e.g., violent videogame legislation).  I'm pretty sure that part of the law would be stricken down, since it's so similar to the ruling in Ashcroft.  My only qualm with that is that the Court later decided a case where a guy was soliciting kiddy porn which was not, in fact, kiddy porn at all, and he was still convicted. 

Well, they did seem to mention cases under which cartoon kid porn was successfully prosecuted under it later on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors#United_States

Dunno if they were cases like that where they were getting someone who had real porn too or what.

I'm guessing the "not pornography" is the thing that says

"It doesn't need to show genitals to be porn." ruling?

Which is all kinds of funny since things CAN show genitals and not be porn... and there are plenty of movies with sex scenes... making it all kinds of a weird double standard.