Be interesting to see how this pans out in terms of the 1st amendment. Without a victim, it would be interesting to see how the courts rule. They could say its inherently unconstitutional but for sake of the general public, it is fine. This would be similar to the supreme court ruling on DUI checkpoints.
The Supreme Court ruled already that there does not need to be a victim, or even any real people at all in its justification to permit refusal of service to lgbt people.
So I’m unsure why even if there were no victims that would be relevant.
To me the problem here is they might identify someone with a problem, but then send them to jail with essentially the same label as an actual pedofile or rapist, and prisons in the US exist as a source of slave labor and future criminals rather than any kind of rehab. So person goes in who is already clearly fucked up (not necessarily this case, assume some case where it’s clearly be demonstrated guilt or whatever) and then comes out with a pile of trauma and no employment prospects and it seems like a sure fire way to create an actual dangerous pedo/abuser.
I think a better equivalence would be the treatment of alcohol - alcoholics don’t go to jail immediately, not even when driving, it requires them failing to get the alcoholism treated, or actually harming people for them to end up in jail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_porn... comments a little on this and suggests that some of the existing laws have been tested in court already.
Still, it's probably better not to be involve in a case like United States vs. $YOU and then have your name appear in this Wikipedia article.