@Switch BlaydeDid you notice that the article you cited is 8 years old?
Also I think a more important quote from the article is this:
Local police found the drawings on Bee's computer in August 2011 while executing a search warrant they obtained based on a tip from his wife. Bee originally was indicted for receiving child pornography, based on a different set of images, but that charge was dropped as part of a plea deal.
Also:
But while the Court has upheld bans on possession (as opposed to production or distribution) of child pornography, it has rejected bans on possession of obscenity. In the latter case, decided in 1969, the Court unanimously ruled that the power to regulate obscenity "does not extend to mere possession by the individual in the privacy of his own home." Hence it is hard to see how Bee can be sent to prison for mere possession of those "incest comics."
And:
Bee won't be raising a First Amendment challenge, however, because he gave up that right in exchange for dismissal of the child pornography charge, which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years.
They went after him for real child pornography (actual images of actual children), but the let him plead down to a obscenity charge based on a separate set of "incest comics" they found while searching for the real child pornography.
The other case mentioned in the article is the same kind of deal a real child porn charge dismissed in favor of a guilty plea on an obscenity charge for a different set of images than what was covered by the child pornography charge.
