Was having a look at various forms of media and broadcasting regulations the other day, and came across an interesting deviation in the laws regarding this subject between Europe and the USA.
Europe has a very broad definition of what constitutes child pornography, so far as much that any "realistic computer generated image of a non-existent child" will satisfy the definition, and thus anyone caught accessing material of this sort will face the various criminal sanctions associated with this sort of behaviour.
However, similar attempts to introduce such a rule in the USA have been deemed to be against the first amendment and blocked. Normally I would agree with this sort of logic, but...in this instance, surely allowing these sorts of graphic "fake" images and so on is just gratifying the demand for "real" content of this sort. The US Supreme Court has rejected this argument, saying there is no evidence showing that this is the case at all...but this doesn't sit particularly well with me.