In today's modern and rapidly developing society, the idea of ​​two adults having sex is still considered taboo. Most Americans cringe at the thought of viewing pornography and dismiss the act as nothing more than an obscene and senseless act. Yet the Supreme Court ruled that pornography should be considered a form of personal expression and should be protected under the First Amendment (New York v. Ferber, 1973). The Supreme Court did not choose to extend the same constitutional protection to child pornography, citing its explicit and offensive content. Supreme Court justices held that child pornography has no scientific, literary, artistic or political value; they believed that child pornography material would cause more harm than good if they allowed it to be protected. As society began to change and computer animation technology advanced, a growing question began to arise: whether virtual pornography should be constitutionally protected, under the argument that it is a form of personal expression and its content has scientific, literary, artistic or political importance. value? Unlike real child pornography, which must include two innocent children participating in sexual acts, virtual pornography consists of two computer-generated children engaging in sexual acts. The same reasoning and arguments used by the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of child pornography cannot be applied to virtual pornography. The pain and suffering that child pornography inflicts on its victims is a primary reason why the First Amendment has not been extended to this type of work; However, virtual pornography does not involve any real victims in its work. The images appear middle of paper and lack the skills and technology to distinguish between virtual and real child pornography. Although the US government has attempted to protect the innocent lives of victims who have been forced to participate in child pornography by expanding the law to cover virtual child pornography, they have failed to adequately articulate the reasons why a law like the CPPA should exist. Ultimately, the Supreme Court justices voted to make virtual child pornography a constitutionally protected form of free speech. Justice O'Connor explains that "the basis for this decision is unclear" and that the decision is based on pleadings presented by the government. Only time will tell if there are any negative effects to allowing virtual child pornography to exist, but as of right now, virtual pornography is a constitutionally protected free speech..