Free Speech -vs- Fake Child Pornography

I have no desires to argue that the production of child pornography represents free speech, nor do I believe that those involved in the spread of child pornography deserve any leniency. I do, however, find this recent Supreme Court decision a bit interesting, and somewhat in error.

As the New York Times reports, The Supreme Court ruled in defense of a portion of a child pornography law that essentially states that it is illegal to promote legitimate, adult pornography as child pornography, usually referred to as "fake child pornography". This goes against a 2002 decision in which the court said that legislation cannot ban pictures of adults posing as children, or essentially cannot ban pictures in which there are no REAL children present.

So, one would be led to interpret these decisions just as the editors at the New York Times have: "Fake" child pornography is legal, but it is illegal to market it as such.

No I guess I can see the reasoning, being that those who sell it might be misleading their customers, but that is not an issue for a Child Pornography Law, but for a business practices law. At any rate, how can this act not be considered free speech as well?

I could understand a person saying real child pornography is just as much free speech as is your typical convenience store pornographic magazine, if it were not for the fact that this is a terrible offense against the children involved.

In fake child pornography, no children ARE involved, however, I'd be worried about the persons who involve themselves in the receipt of this type of pornography, and what desires it might produce in them, as well as what ends might result.